This is a letter, but amounts to a filled in book outline of years and
years of the battle between Graham Berry and scientology. It will be
very interesting for those with associative data bases to feed this
one into them.

Graham has been too busy to look for a publisher, but if anyone wants
to forward this to one, please do and let me know by email. I am
going to act informally for a while as Graham's literary agent. I can
provide the Word version instead of trying to make do with ascii text

Keith Henson

PS, the formatting inconsistencies are due to my converting to text
from Word. The paragraph indents are irregular and all the bold/ital/
underlining was lost.

The purpose of this letter is to comply with the Court's
September 19,2001 Order by " [delineating] at the minimum the terms of
the offers that have been exchanged and the parties position on the
factual and legal issues in the proceedings."

" The Church of Scientology has hijacked the legal system and
crashed it through the Constitution." PTSC, ARS Internet Newsgroup,
Sept. 9,2001. At a Status Conference herein on September 7,2001,
[shill] joint complainant Michael Gerner, Esq. conceded that he had
been hired by Respondent's long-time litigation adversary, the Church
of Scientology ("Scientology"), to file and pursue the complaint
herein. It was commenced in connection with the now dismissed Hurtado
v. Berry State and Federal cases which were voluntarily dismissed
after Joint Complainant Wager testified that he and Kendrick L. Moxon,
Esq. had solicited the representation of Hurtado (as they had done
with Cipriano and earlier Jason Scott) and that he (Wager) had engaged
in witness tampering. See Chronology and Privilege Brief. The State
Bar now ignores the conduct of the perpetrators of a seven-year
R.I.C.O. pattern of felony crime and other wrongful tortious and
unethical conduct intentionally directed at Respondent and now
proceeds against him - the victim of that misconduct. Indeed, there
are duplicative proceedings pending before the Federal Bankruptcy
Court. These concern Counts One to Three herein that are the gravaman
of the Barton v. Berry Adverse action in Bankruptcy. Note: All
statutory and rule references herein, unless otherwise indicated, are
to the Cal. Business & Professions Code and the California Rules of
Professional Conduct.

However, this year the State Bar has written two complainants (former
clients Michael Pattinson and Keith Henson) and also myself stating
that it has fully investigated these matters and found no misconduct
on the part of the Moxon & Kobrin 'law firm'. See generally:
Chronology, Wager letters, Double Crossed. Instead, the State Bar acts
on the complaint of the Real Parties In Interest (through joint
complainants Gerner and Wager) and seeks to severely punish their
victim- me. There has been a substantial expression of public protest
and demands to the State Bar that it appoint an Independent Panel of
Three Retired Judges To investigate what has really occurred here. The
State Bar has ignored those requests. The Office of Chief Trial
Counsel has written stating that it has the exclusive jurisdiction in
such matters. It has also written me asking me to state why the Rules
of Professional Conduct should not be applied to me. It has never
explained why the Rules of Professional Conduct should not be applied
against the Real Parties In Interest (Bias, Selective Enforcement,
Denial of Due Process, etc.) and Joint Complainant Wager.
The trial date herein has been set, over Respondent's Due Process and
Respondent's Doctor's objections, for December 11,2001.The same
allegations (Counts One through Three) go to trial before the
Bankruptcy Court six weeks later on January 28,2002 (Bankruptcy Court
Order, September 20,2001). On September 24,2001,the State Bar Court
herein refused to continue the trial herein until after the trial in
the related and underlying civil proceeding. See also: Combined
Opposition, Motions For Reconsideration and Extension of
Time.Accordingly, as matters now stand, these proceedings appear
headed for the Review Department, the California Supreme Court and
perhaps the Federal Courts. Certainly, they are increasingly within
the court of public opinion. The opinion of the public should not be
irrelevant. It is their protection that should be the focus of theses
proceedings-not Scientology's desire to be rid of, or to have
tarnished, a litigation foe foiling their "psycho-terrorist" and other
illegal activities directed at former members and those with whom the
church takes offense. See generally, Support Letters.

As you will come to learn, the underlying matters involve ten years of
litigation against the Church of Scientology in over 15 different
cases. The underlying matters are complicated, intertwined and
involve, as against me, the Real Parties In Interest commission of
demonstrable and corroborated bankruptcy fraud, insurance fraud,
frauds upon other courts, blackmail, bribery, solicitation,
maintenance and champerty, perjury, use of a third person, wire
tapping, obstruction of justice, false criminal reports, false state
bar reports and other misconduct almost too numerous to list.
Indisputably, complainant Wager [Gerner], and the other Real Parties
In Interest, have committed a number of RICO predicate acts in the
connection with the underlying matters of which they complain! For
clarity and the convenience of others who may have occasion to read
this, and humbly offered with no disrespect intended, I find that at
times it is more convenient to write in the third person. I greatly
appreciate your forbearance with regard to this matter.

Because of the complexity of the underlying matters, and
in order to provide you with appropriate and accurate explanation
about what has been committed and by whom, I have also lodged the
above listed enclosures herewith. The State Bar is clearly under
pressure from the Church of Scientology to make an example of me as a
deterrent to other counsel accepting cases against it. Indeed, from
the mistakes, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations in the draft
State Bar complaint it would appear that scientology representatives
might have drafted the initial 'draft' complaints herein. The
scientology enterprise calls this " . . . putting the heads of critics
and their counsel on a pike." It is written scientology policy and
dogma. Accordingly, the State Bar refuses all additional time I
request.

Because you have not been personally involved in these matters, this
letter and the events herein may strike you, as they would any
rational law-abiding person, as the paranoid ravings of a person who
ought to be writing mystery novels and not the cool and rational
explanations of an attorney with many years of experience in pleading
his cases. Nevertheless, I can assure you that this is not so. The
facts outlined herein are demonstrable, if incredible, and I beg your
forbearance as you work through all of this material, even as your
ability to accept these events as having actually occurred may well
stretch it to the limit! The experience of dealing with all of this
complex and convoluted material is, I am certain, much like Alice's
experience in Wonderland.

SUMMARY OF FACTUAL ISSUES

Although even the Bard in all his creativity would have had difficulty
in imagining the situation in which I now find myself, he nevertheless
characterized it, as well the Real Parties In Interest part in this
situation, when he wrote the immortal and oft repeated words, "Oh,
what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
Indeed, as you will read, the defamatory Cipriano "pedophilia"
falsehoods ["the First Cipriano Declaration"], criminally procured by
certain of The Real Parties In Interest, continue to be published
continuously and worldwide. As you will also learn, these matters
involve a continuing and unbroken conspiracy to deprive me of certain
constitutional, civil and human rights guaranteed to every citizen. In
that regard, I have refused to roll over in the face of continuing, or
easily continued, wrongs against me. The defense of justification in
Church of Scientology related legal matters (or more relevantly, one's
self-defense in litigation against the Church of Scientology) were
expressly accepted in Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, 232
Cal.App.3d 1060,1067 (1991). See generally: United States v. Kattar,
840 F2d 118,125, (1st Cir.1988); Church of Scientology v. Commissioner
of Internal Revenue, 83 U.S. Tax Ct.Rpt., 381, 429 - 442 (1984); Van
Schaick v. Church of Scientology, 535 F.Supp.1125, 1131,n.4 (U.S.D.C.
Mass. 1982); Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th.
628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620 (1996); Hart v. Cult Awareness
Network, 13 Cal App. 4th 777, 16 Cal Rptr 705(19___); Wollersheim v.
Church of Scientology, 212 CalApp. 872, 888-891,260 Cal Rptr 331
(1989); Allard v. Church of Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443n.1,129
Cal Rptr. 797 (1976); Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57
Ore.App. 203 (1983).

In essence, as you will see, from the history of these matters, and
from sworn documents filed during the various relevant proceedings,
the genesis of these matters commenced in late 1993 during Church of
Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz, USDC Case No. 93 - 3843 - HLH. That
was when Tim Bowles, Esq., then of Bowles & Moxon, admitted on the
record, to US District Court Judge Harry Hupp, that his law firm was
"investigating" me. Scientology Fair Game Policies state:" when we
want someone "haunted" we "investigate." Rule 3-200. Moxon & Kobrin,
successor partners to Bowles & Moxon, and Ingram, Abelson, Drescher
and CSI, ignored the federal judge's admonition to, "Stop it." As
Detective Petz can testify about Abelson and as the various Hurtado
family members have already testified, in early 1999 Moxon and Ingram
both stated that they had been after me for a very "long time".
Indeed, Michael Hurtado testified that the only reason he sued me was
Moxon, Ingram and Wager's use of the First Cipriano Declaration as
their "evidence" of "pedophilia". See Complainant's correspondence,
Privilege Brief, Chronology. The subsequent history of these matters
is also well documented. For example: Privilege Brief; August 20,1999
transcript pages 40 to 73 ;October 7,1999 Letter; March 5,2001 Letter;
March 8,2001 Letter; Chronology; Interrogatories.

One month before trial, on February 6, 2001, Hurtado/ Scientology/
Moxon/ Wager/ Byrnes/ Abelson/ Ingram unilaterally and voluntarily
dismissed Hurtado v. Berry in California. Six months later the United
States Bankruptcy Court ordered the Hurtado case dismissed after
Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette filed a voluntary dismissal under
F.R.Civ.P.Rule 41 (a) there. They did so rather than receive an
inevitable ruling that the communications between the church, Moxon &
Kobrin, Abelson, Wager, Byrnes, Hurtado, Paquette and others (such as
complaining scientology attorney Michael Gerner, Esq.) were not
subject to the attorney client or work product privileges because of
the crime fraud exception. See Privilege Brief and exhibits thereo.
Obviously, that ruling would have been extended to include the Paul,
Hastings; Orrick, Herrington; Williams & Connolly, and other law
firms. Clearly, it could be arguably extended to include all
communications between complainants and the State Bar (privileged or
otherwise). In addition, the Real Parties In Interest would have had
to produce Eugene Ingram for deposition and to comply with various
other discovery refusals and failures on their part. Thus, they
dismissed the verified suit one month before trial. There were no
mitigating factors.

Indeed, it is now clear and convincing, from the evidence on the court
records of numerous federal and state cases, that the Real Parties In
Interest (who include those listed above) have engaged in the most
unimaginable and horrendous criminal, civil and unethical conduct
toward me (and others). See above. This outrageous conduct was
perpetrated in a now transparent conspiracy to apply the Church of
Scientology's Fair Game policies and practices to me. This criminal
and civil conspiracy includes numerous RICO predicate acts, which have
now been corroborated by overwhelming oral and documentary testimony.
See generally, Privilege Brief, Chronology. Indeed, one of non - party
complainant Michael Gerner's co-counsel (Donald Wager, Esq.), who co
-signed Gerner's numerous letters to the State Bar herein, has
confirmed some of this serious criminal activity in his own recent
deposition testimony (e.g., that he, Moxon & Kobrin, and the church
solicited and paid money for perjury in legal proceedings underlying
these matters before the State Bar which has consistently ignored
evidence of similar unlawful conduct by certain of the Real Parties in
Interest herein.).See Chronology. The ultimate outcome of this and the
preceding matters is now clear and certain, whatever the ostrich -like
position of the State Bar is. However, after two years of refusal to
proscute, by numerous State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel, the matter
reached Terri Goldade, Esq. in early January 2001 and she accepted the
truth of all of Complainant's allegations (even after the voluntary
dismissal of the Hurtado matter which was being pursued herein) and
she proceeded with the instant complaint. See Complainant's
correspondence. The original Eleventh Cause of Action was
dismissed/withdrawn. On September 24,2001 the State Bar dismissed the
Ninth Cause of Action herein after Respondent established the truth of
what he had been asserting from day one as to that matter. For these
and other reasons the State Bar has clearly failed to properly
investigate before Ms. Goldade received the file, accepted the
scientology complainants misrepresentations, and forged bullishly
ahead-concerned only with prosecutorial success and not the pursuit of
truth or furtherance of justice.

The Real Parties In Interest, representing the Church of Scientology,
have convinced these particular two State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel
that I, the victim of all of this attorney criminality, should be the
counsel who is disciplined and actually disbarred. Then my opposing
parties in the underlying related case, and other cases, will have a
scarlet letter to hang around my neck like an albatross.
To date this year, the State Bar has issued three different letters to
three different people that nothing the Real Parties in Interest
herein (including State Bar members Moxon, Wager, Abelson, Kobrin and
Paquette) is wrongful, evidenced or actionable! The matters are now
being pursued elsewhere and ultimately again here-perhaps to the
ultimate embarrassment of the California State Bar Office of Chief
Trial Counsel and the California State Bar Court.

Of course, there will also be my own prospective litigation
("malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc.") at the very least
against the individual lawyers, law firms, investigators and other
individuals engaged in what has occurred since Complainants'
"investigation" of me commenced back in 1993.When Scientology wants
someone "haunted" they "investigate." But see, Rule 3-200,Section 6068
(c), (g). Scientology, Bowles, Moxon and Ingram have all sworn
declarations that after I prevailed against them in the Church of
Scientology v. Fishman & Geertz case they proceeded to "investigate me
and the investigation led directly to the First Cipriano Declaration."
Such a demonstrable, continuing conspiracy tars each of the Real
Parties In Interest listed above. Section 6103. Unlike Moxon & Kobrin
and Scientology, the other Real Parties In Interest will not have to
have these serious repercussions explained to their respective law
firms and insurance carriers. In that regard, all of them may be
liable even if some of them will be claiming that they are less liable
than others (such as Gary Soter and David Chodos who apparently
terminated their involvement after the discovery abuse and vexatious
litigant rulings in the Berry cases.) Others (such as Wager, Bregman,
Gerner and Byrnes) joined later. Some actually engaged in criminal
conduct and others only in civil or unethical conduct. One or two may
be able to claim plain ignorance as a defense. Others may have
vicarious and agent liabilities. However, it will be for the courts
(criminal and civil as well as the State Bar here, various District
Court Disciplinary Committees around the country and other States
Bars) to determine issues relating to the allocation of liability,
responsibility and damages. Indeed, it may be that the various
malpractice insurance carriers (to the extent that there is coverage)
for the Paul, Hastings /Williams & Connelly/ Wasserman, Comden &
Casselman, etc. firms and other lawyer defendants seek contribution
from the scientology enterprise.

Notwithstanding, it is crystal clear that Moxon, Kobrin, Abelson and
Ingram are involved for the entire duration of the conspiracy and
related criminal, civil and unethical conduct directed toward me. The
damning testimony even includes the testimony of one of Hurtado's own
lawyers in the identical, but now dismissed, state court case. There,
Donald Wager, Esq., has recently testified to making illegal payments
to a prisoner in exchange for false testimony against me, and to being
reimbursed by Moxon (who we know was reimbursed either by
Scientology). See Privilege Brief, Wager Transcript and Chronology.
Remarkably, Wager is a President of the Los Angeles County Criminal
Bar Association! The stunning and damning testimony includes the
unimpeached testimony of at least ten other witnesses and over sixty
exhibits in the state court Hurtado v. Berry case (LASC Case No. BC
208227). What is also troubling was their utter failure to amend the
verified but perjured federal pleadings in the Hurtado v. Berry case
or to dismiss them for six months after they voluntarily dismissed in
State Court a few days after the disastrous Wager deposition.
Amazingly, the State Bar has objected to the lodging of the Wager
Deposition as being irrelevant and the Court herein has admonished
Respondent and ordered the transcript stricken from the Court's files.
All other documents incriminating Wager and the Real Parties in
Interest have been order stricken by the trial judge herein, Hon.
Eugene E. Brott. Interestingly, Wager is President of the Los Angeles
County Criminal Bar Association.

Clearly, Real Parties and the State Bar have long had notice of the
continuing perjury and utterly false Hurtado allegations, filed under
the names of Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Wager and Bregman.Rule 3-200,
Sections 6068 (c), (d), (f), 6106. In case the significance of this is
not readily apparent, in late March 2001, the Acting U.S.Customs
Commissioner properly stated in the press " there is no crime more
revolting to law enforcement than the sexual exploitation of
children." For nearly eight years, and on the basis of the Cipriano,
Apodaca and Hurtado perjuries, the Real Parties In Interest have been
publishing and filing the First Cipriano Declaration with baseless and
never proven allegations, obtained through felony crimes and perjury,
that I am a pedophile. Rule 3-200,Section 6106. The false, criminally
procured and seriously damaging allegations mirror scientology dogma
for handling their perceived enemies such as myself, who has
successfully represented a number of those they have sued and sought
to destroy. Rule 3-200. Hurtado v. Berry was part of the ensuing
obstruction of justice and other serious felonies committed by certain
of the Real Parties In Interest. Sections 6068 (a), (c), (d), (f),
(g), 6106, etc.

Elliot Abelson, Esq., has said that it was a fatal mistake for Ingram,
Moxon & Kobrin, Jerry Bregman, Donald Wager, Thomas Byrnes [and
himself] to solicit, file and prosecute the Hurtado v. Berry federal
and state cases. Rules 2-101(B), (C), 5-101,5-102,7-103;Section 6108
(c), (d), (f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106. Indeed, this Church of
Scientology, Ingram, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Rosen, Abelson, Byrnes,
Wager, Gerner et. al., seven-year attack on me only gets worse and
worse for all those involved. Even for those who have had very limited
roles and knowledge of the relevant overall church operation, project
or mission being carried out in the underlying matters. Every day,
statutes of limitation are tolled by the continuing wrongful conduct,
such as the worldwide publication of the perjured First Cipriano
Declaration that merely aggravates the ultimate damage awards to me.
["There is no statute of limitations in attorney disciplinary
proceedings. Matter of Bach (Review Dept. 1991) 1 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rptr.631 [15]. In this regard, Scientology was held liable for an
ultimate $4M defamation award against a Canadian lawyer: Casey Hill v.
Church of Scientology case. The sizable award made to Mr. Hill in that
case was in Canada and it was the largest ever such award in Canada!
Here in California the cult and its various counsel clearly have not
ceased the type of conduct and Fair Game practices responsible, in
part, for the $30 million jury awards in the Christofferson and
Wollersheim cases. See generally: Church of Scientology v. Wollersheim
(1996 2nd.Dist.) 42 Cal.App. 4th. 628,648-649,49 Cal.Rptr.626;
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, (1989 2nd.Dist) 212 Cal.App.872,
888-891,260 Cal.Rptr. 331;Christofferson v. Church of Scientology
(1983) 57 Ore.App.203. . Scientology (and possibly Moxon) also framed
author Paulette Cooper [" The Scandal of Scientology"] on false bomb
threat charges. Only when the F.B.I. raided scientology premises was
the evidence of a Church of Scientology frame-up discovered and the
scientology initiated criminal proceedings against Paulette Cooper
dismissed.

The wrongful manner in which Wager, Moxon, Abelson and Ingram certain
of the Real Parties In Interest misused Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado
during the underlying Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/ Miscavige,
(Moxon/Abelson) cases is now established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Certainly, it is established to the clear and convincing standard
required for punitive damages and State Bar discipline. This wrongful
conduct, directed specifically at me, and committed by the generously
paid army of lawyers, from nearly a dozen different law firms across
the nation, has driven me from professional practice, home, health and
society. This was just as the church's Fair Game practices, carried
out by the Real Parties In Interest, intended. They now manipulate the
California State Bar to complete their "cycle of action"," operation"
, "mission" and "Battle plan".

Consequently, driven from my career of nearly thirty years, my home
and my ailing and elderly vehicle, I am now writing a book on the
events and people that comprise the background of the incredible
matters before you. Previous and ignored Sate Bar complainants such as
Dr. Uwe Geertz, Keith Henson, Arel Lucas, Jane Scott and others are
waiving confidentiality in connection with the matters they have
unsuccessfully sought state bar action upon. The book is to be
entitled Surviving Scientology - A Vexatious Litigant? A television
documentary team has requested a meeting with me. I intend to have the
book completed within a year. Numerous people in the movie industry
have urged me not to sell the visual rights before speaking with them.
I then intend to write further books including a history of
scientology's abuse of the legal system entitled Scientology - Church
of Crime, Fraud and Fair Game; a history of the church entitled
Scientology: The lives, lies and legacies of L. Ron Hubbard and David
Miscavige; and my own version of What is Scientology? I may have to do
so from a foreign safe haven. This was of great concern to Ava
Paquette, Esq. when she took my debtor's examination (yet again) in
Jeavons v. Church of Scientology (Count seven herein). Rule 3-200.
It is for that reason that I have said I will not settle with the
cult and its various complicit counsel. They have taken my career,
life (figuratively, if not yet literally), assets and retirement
prospects. Writing about how that happened, including what is now
happening before the State Bar Court, is my only remaining prospect
for an appropriate retirement. Some suggest that I should stipulate to
the Bar's ill-considered demands in order to further martyr myself and
provoke even further public outrage. I disagree. I am proud of my
hitherto unblemished legal practice in five jurisdictions and four
nations. There has been significant public support. See, Support
Letters.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

This factual summary deals primarily with the Tenth Count [Maintaining
Unjust Actions against the Church of Scientology]. However, the events
regarding the other Counts are necessarily intertwined, at least
chronologically. A summary of the facts regarding the other Counts in
the NIC is set forth in the Interrogatories. A summary of the
conspiracy and other wrongful conduct by certain parties among the
Real Parties In Interest is also set forth below. See generally:
Chronology; Interrogatories; August 20,1999 Transcript; Petition;
October 7,1999 Letter; March 5,2001 Letter; March 8,2001 Letter;
Privilege Brief.

Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Rosen and Ingram have
consistently alleged that their activities, directed against me, are
to protect the Church of Scientology from harassment. However, Moxon,
Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Rosen and Ingram know, or ought to have
known, that this defense was resoundingly rejected in Allard v. Church
of Scientology of California, 68 Cal. App. 3d 439, 129 Cal. Rptr. 797
(CT at 1976) cert. denied, 97 S. Ct 1101 (1977) where it was held as
follows:

The defendants' [the Church of Scientology's leaders]
contention that they committed the crimes of which they stand
convicted in order to protect their church from government harassment
collapses when one reviews a sample of the remaining documents seized
by the FBI during the execution of the two Los Angeles search
warrants. If anything, these documents establish beyond question that
the defendants, their convicted codefendants, and their unindicted
co-conspirators [which included Commodore Hubbard and current
Scientology counsel Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq.], as well as their
organization [the Church of Scientology], considered themselves above
the law. They believe they had carte blanche to violate the rights of
others, frame critics in order to destroy them, burglarize private and
public offices and steal documents outlining the strategy of
individuals and organizations that the church had sued. The church
filed these suits for the sole purpose of financially bankrupting its
critics and in order to create an atmosphere of fear so that critics
would shy away from the First Amendment Rights secured them by the
Constitution. The defendants and their cohorts [such as unindicted
co-conspirator Moxon] launched vicious smear campaigns, spreading
falsehoods against those they perceive to be enemies of Scientology in
order to discredit them and, in some instances, to cause them to lose
their employment . . . To these defendants and their associates,
however, anyone who did not agree with them was considered to be an
enemy against whom the so-called 'Fair Game' doctrine could be invoked
. . . (emphasis added)

. . . It is interesting to note that the founder of their
organization, unindicted co-conspirator, L. Ron Hubbard, wrote in his
Modern Management Technology that, ' . . . truth is what is true for
you,' and 'illegal' is that which is, 'contrary to Scientology policy'
and not pursuant to Scientology's 'approved program.' Thus, with the
Commodore's blessing they could wantonly commit crimes as long as it
were in the interests of Scientology. These defendants rewarded
criminal activities that ended in success and sternly rebuked those
that failed. In view of this, it defies the imagination that these
defendants have the unmitigated audacity to seek to defend their
actions in the name of religion. (emphasis added)

Jerry Bregman, Esq. jointly filed the Hurtado v. Berry federal court
complaint of the very same unindicted co-conspirator, Kendrick L.
Moxon, Esq., and certain of the other Real Parties In Interest. CSI,
Wager and Byrnes were involved in the identical state court case.
Abelson and Ingram were also extensively involved throughout. It
appears that it was Wager who recruited Gerner (the actual non - party
complainant herein) to badger the State Bar into having me removed as
being one of less than a handful of counsel nationwide who have been
willing to litigate against the Church of Scientology. Rule 3-200,
Section 6068 (c), (d) and (e). Clearly, the many Complainants Letters
(full of false representations) are not written in the usual manner of
a dispassionate, objective and personally uninvolved counsel - a fact
that the State Bar seems unwilling to acknowledge. Curiously, every
letter to the State Bar by Gerner is counter-signed by Wager. Indeed,
it has long been rumored among various members of the California Bar
that shockingly, if regrettably not surprisingly, the Church of
Scientology has operatives within the State Bar to ensure that
opposing counsel are harassed and scientology counsel remain
undisciplined! The evidence is that Wager and Moxon have worked
together for a number of years. Indeed, Wager and Scientology first
took covert actions against me in 1995.

The evidence establishes that Moxon is, in essence, an in-house
attorney for the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs
("OSA"). OSA is similar to the C.I.A. which, until 1947,was known as
OSS. The evidence herein (much of it corroborated) clearly and
convincingly establishes that what follows, in so far as the Berry,
Hurtado, Moxon, Barton, Pattinson, Henson, Jeavons and Anders cases
are concerned, is correct. See Chronology.

Seven years ago, the Los Angeles Daily Journal published a lead
article under the headline "Church Calls It Quits." The Church of
Scientology had dismissed its defamation lawsuit against former
adherent Steven Fishman and his Florida psychologist Uwe Geertz. The
church had sought at least $1 million in damages against each of the
two defendants for their comments in the May 6, 1991, issue of Time
Magazine, "Scientology; Thriving Cult of Greed and Power." The
complaint in the Fishman case alleged that Fishman and Geertz had
falsely claimed that Fishman was ordered by church officials to kill
Dr. Geertz and then commit suicide in the wake of Fishman's arrest in
a fraudulent financial scheme that had allegedly involved the church.
In a related matter, the president of the Church of Scientology
International jumped $1M bail and is now on the lam avoiding Spanish
Government trial and request for a sixty year prison sentence.
I had successfully represented Dr. Geertz and assisted Steven Fishman
who was representing himself. "Besides serving as a legal setback, the
action in the case may also hinder Scientology's pursuit of a related
libel lawsuit against Time Magazine," the Daily Journal commented. It
did and Time Magazine's successful motion for summary judgment was
recently affirmed on appeal. According to the Daily Journal article,"
Scientology had claimed in its 34-page motion to voluntarily dismiss
its lawsuit," that it, "always has been willing to litigate to achieve
justice, but when it is told it must subject its parishioners and
anybody associated with it in any way to such blatant harassment and
sacrilege [it] cannot pursue its claims."

The Daily Journal article went on to say that these claims resulted
from my Christmas "raid" at Scientology's Celebrity Center where Kelly
Preston-Travolta, Juliette Lewis, Isaac Hayes and Maxine Nightingale
were served with deposition subpoenas. Actor Charles Durning who had
been appearing as Santa Claus and who is not a scientologist was also
served. Despite the appeals of the some of LA's leading entertainment
law firms, John Travolta and the other Scientology celebrities were
ordered into immediate deposition along with Scientology leader David
Miscavige and the church's entire senior management team. Actor Tom
Cruise twice threatened to sue me in connection with testimony
concerning Nicole Kidman and him and their activities at the church's
heavily armed desert fortress near Hemet, California. Actor John
Travolta has long been involved in some of the matters set forth
herein. Both Cruise and Travolta are scientology spokespersons. The
related, unsuccessful church litigation (involving five cases) cost an
aggregate of approximately $20 million.

The Church of Scientology openly blamed me for its retreat in the
Fishman-Geertz case, the publication of its Upper Level materials
("the Fishman Declaration") and set about employing its controversial
fair game policy, which says that anyone interfering with scientology
could be "tricked, lied to or destroyed," for his or her actions.
Among other things, the filing of the Fishman Declaration attaching
the church's confidential trade secret scriptures ("OT I - VIII") set
the stage for a series of high profile Internet lawsuits alleging
thousands of purported copyright violations. Since the Fishman-Geertz
case the church's fortunes, irrespective of what you may have been led
to believe, have never been the same.

I have paid dearly for the largely successful defense of my various
clients being sued by Moxon and others on behalf of the Church of
Scientology. As stated, over the past seven years I have been driven
from my career, my home and car, and into the Bankruptcy Court where
the Church of Scientology, Moxon & Kobrin, Rosen, Hurtado and Barton
continued to pursue me. In the process, they wrongfully obtained a
vexatious litigant ruling against me, as well as multiple sanctions
awards based thereon, and made/instigated over thirteen successive
attempts to have me professionally disciplined as well as at least
three different attempts to have me arrested for contrived offenses.
Rule 3-200.

To reiterate, so that there is no confusion as to what has
happened (and to quote scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard, "The
number of times through the material equals certainty"), recently
(February 6, 2001), Moxon and Byrnes suddenly, unilaterally and
voluntarily dismissed the verified Hurtado v. Berry state court
lawsuit less than one month before trial. However, the Hurtado
dismissal came as Moxon unsuccessfully tried to replace discovery
referee Hon. Stephen Lachs and while Moxon awaited the outcome of a
motion to compel the deposition of his chief "investigator" Eugene
Ingram and an almost certain ruling that the crime-fraud exception
(Cal. Evidence Code ? 956) to the attorney-client privilege applied at
the least to communications between the Moxon & Kobrin lawyers, Elliot
Abelson, Donald Wager, Thomas Byrnes, Miguel Hurtado, Michael Hurtado,
Anthony Apodaca, Robert Cipriano and the Church of Scientology.
Clearly, communications between them and Michael Gerner would also
have been ruled non - privileged because of the crime-fraud exception
(Cal. Evidence Code ? 956). Facing inevitable defeat at trial, the
Church of Scientology, through its pawn, Hurtado, again in the
eleventh hour, attempted to cut its losses, hoisted the white flag of
surrender and fled from the battlefield. Six months later they did so
in Federal Court pursuant to F.R.Civ.P.Rule 41 (a), which provides
that, such was a termination in my favor, particularly because of the
prior State Court dismissal. I am now seeking counsel to file the
malicious prosecution and abuse of process action against the various
culpable parties (some of whom have very deep insurance pockets).
The evidence in the Hurtado v. Berry case is unusually damning because
it is corroborated by a lawyer's testimony/confession (a Los Angeles
County Criminal Bar Association President), over ten different
witnesses as well as over sixty different documents - many of which
bear Moxon's own signature and handwriting. The oral and written
testimony, and corroborating documents, include multiple incidents of
blackmail, bribery, extortion, witness tampering, subornation of
perjury, perjury, wire tapping, obstruction of justice, frauds upon
various courts, attorney misrepresentations and lies to various
courts, false criminal complaints, false state bar complaints and
possible judicial corruption. The evidence trail commences in late
1993, and constitutes an unbroken continuum and pattern of criminal,
tortious and unethical conduct through to the present day. See
generally: Cannon v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 1103,1115.
Complainant Wager [Gerner] commenced his involvement back in 1994,
when he sought out my friend and previously engaged expert R. Vaughan
Young as a potential expert in prospective litigation, now known to
have been bogus. This was a pretext for trying to turn Young against
me. Mr. Young memorialized this by contemporaneous letter to Wager.
Later, Wager would recruit his office neighbour Michael Gerner, to
file the pending State Bar complaints against me. Curiously, Wager
co-signed most of the several dozen Gerner letters urging exigent and
summary State Bar disbarment action against me. In addition, numerous
phone calls were made and photographs of me were even provided to the
State Bar! See, Complainant's correspondence, November 29,2001.The
photograph evidences the Church of Scientology's ulterior motives and
real agenda herein - the punishment and suppression of first amendment
picketing and debate!

The Gerner/Wager State Bar complaint related, among other things, to
an attempted levy under the fraudulently obtained Barton $28,000
prevailing party costs' order issued against me in Berry v. Cipriano,
Barton, Miscavige (Moxon/Abelson) following my February 1999,
discovery default described above. NIC Counts One to Three and the
pending Barton v. Berry Adversary Proceeding. Wager and Gerner then
engaged in almost daily pressure upon numerous, different State Bar
officials (including Supreme Court Justice Lui) to have me disbarred.
See Complainants Correspondence. Their unrelenting pressure upon the
State Bar was built upon misrepresentation and distortion, until
finally they managed to move the Gerner/Wager complaint file to a
State Bar official (Terri Goldade, Esq) who agreed to commence a
disciplinary proceeding against me, despite the horrendous
circumstances into which Gerner's and Wager's principals had
intentionally driven me. Again, and curiously, this was at the same
time as Moxon, Wager and Byrnes voluntarily dismissed the Hurtado
State Court proceedings as described above. Less than one month
before, on January 3,2001 the State Bar (through another official) had
dismissed the Gerner /Wager complaint (which was part of this
complaint/proceeding) that I be disciplined on the basis the of the
perjured allegations that they solicited, suborned and prosecuted
against me in the Hurtado v. Berry State and Federal Court cases.
Rules 2-101(B), (C), 3-200, 5-101,5-102,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d),
(f), (g); Sections 6103, 6106.Undeterred by Wager's recent confession
under oath, Gerner arrogantly and shamelessly continued to
aggressively pursue Scientology's State Bar attempts to "utterly
destroy" me by "whatever means possible". Thus, Moxon and Scientology
continue the conduct for which they were so scathingly condemned in,
among other decisions, the Allard opinion quoted above. See also:
United States v. Hubbard (1979) 474 F.Supp.64 where Moxon had been
identified as an unindicted co-conspirator. The California State Bar
continues to exonerate and cover-up their conduct including that of
Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President Donald Wager,
Esq.

The evidence in Hurtado v. Berry is shockingly reminiscent of
John Grisham's novels such as The Firm and The Street Lawyer. In 1994,
the Church Of Scientology, through Moxon & Kobrin and their
investigator Eugene Ingram, set about fabricating evidence that I was
a pedophile. This was done in accordance with the teachings, examples
and policies of church founder L. Ron Hubbard. Former New York
resident, Robert Cipriano, has repeatedly testified that Ingram,
impersonating an LAPD detective, blackmailed/extorted him into signing
a declaration falsely alleging that I had molested between 40 and 60,
14 to 16 year olds during one six month period. Rule 2-300,Sections
6068 and 6106,etc. This was the First Cipriano Declaration. Unable to
produce anything more than the allegations, and in the face of
evidence to the contrary, Moxon explained that all of the alleged
victims were, "Street hustlers who must have died of AIDS!" Section
6068(d). Scientologist Russell Shaw posted the First Cipriano
Declaration, to the worldwide Internet.Cipriano was the primary
defendant in Berry v.Cipriano.He was a defendant in the Berry v.
Barton case. The original publication was by a scientology front
group, The CAN Reform Group, which included Glenn Barton herein.
Scientology also had the fabricated First Cipriano Declaration,
distributed worldwide to most of my friends, business and professional
associates, even to judges and politicians. It still posted to the
Internet and distributed to any the Church and its lawyers care to try
and bias against me. Abelson and Moxon directly participated in this
activity. Rule 3-200,Sections 6068 and 6106. Astoundingly, the
scientology enterprise has even leafleted the wipers of every car
within a three-bock radius of my home! One of Scientology many
different versions of their leaflets is particularly disturbing. It
was taken within my apartment and not by a known friend or myself. But
then again, Elliot Abelson, Esq and Scientology have been found
interfering with/tapping my telephone line. See Chronology, December
11,1996 (p.18/34). It occurred again in the Hurtado matter. See,
Chronology.Indeed, many people and myself assume that Scientology is
currently tapping my telephone and others, and Internet
communications, and adjust the communications accordingly. The regular
and sometimes frequent telephone calls with no one at the other end
generally go click if I say: "Hubbard was crazy and so is Miscavige"
(who seized control of the cult after Hubbard's death).

At the time the church, Bowles & Moxon, and Ingram commenced their
[Rule 3-200] "investigation" of me in 1993, I was about to become, and
later did become, an equity partner in the large Los Angeles law firm
of Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and had had an eight year
average of over 2,300 billable and 2,700 aggregate hours per year. As
you know, I had represented the Disciplinary Committee of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California in its
high profile District Court and Ninth Circuit proceedings against
Stephen Yagman [Standing Committee v. Yagman (9th Cir.1995) 55 F.3d
1430] had been involved in various celebrity law suits and was
representing former attorney James Tierney in high profile proceedings
involving Brian Wilson and Mike Love of the Beach Boys. I had been
involved in defending some of the biggest legal malpractice cases of
the previous decade and was rocketing up the Lewis, D'Amato
partnership ladder. I was in a long-term relationship, owned my own
home, my car and had healthy retirement prospects and dreams.
Then, Moxon and Ingram obtained the perjured First Cipriano
["pedophilia"] Declaration and through people such as Barton, Chait,
Casselman and Shaw, published it on the Internet (where, incredibly,
it remains published today!). Lewis, D'Amato employees read the First
Cipriano Declaration on the Internet, discussed it among themselves
and mentioned it to me. Correctly, pedophilia is one of the most
serious crimes in society and pedophiles properly wear a permanent
scarlet letter. My denials aside, I felt that I would never escape the
destructive "where there's smoke, there's fire" attitude. As a member
of the gay community, I am particularly sensitive to being baselessly
and permanently labeled a pedophile.

For those and other reasons, I resigned from the Lewis, D'Amato law
firm and joined the Musick, Peeler & Garret law firm as an equity
partner. Subsequently, scientology private investigators spent several
days waiting in the reception area of the Musick, Peeler & Garret law
firm. They were waiting in vain for the firm's senior partners to meet
with them. They said they had an envelope containing information about
me and had to personally deliver it. They delivered their packages
{which they call "Black Propaganda" and " Dead Agent Packs") to many
of Musick, Peeler's clients, partners and former partners. Moxon and
Abelson were participating. They made Internet Posts that a Musick,
Peeler & Garrett partner, myself, was a child molester. This type of
harassment [Rule 3-200] and constantly distributed perjurious
defamation [Sections 6068 (c), (d), (f), (g), 6106] was a factor in my
ultimate decision to resign my partnership in the Musick, Peeler &
Garret law firm and seek redress against the scientology enterprise. I
filed the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson)
consolidated cases.

The redress and justice that I sought and received is described both
above and below. The perpetual risk of scientology doing this again in
the future, whether through Chodos, Moxon, Ingram, Wager, Moxon,
Gerner, Kobrin, Paquette or other scientology agents makes it
impossible for me to seek employment with another law firm, even when
treatment of my consequential "severe depression" has been
successfully completed-which I hope and expect will be by February,
2002.

As set forth in the pleadings in the Cipriano, Barton and Miscavige,
(Moxon /Abelson) cases, Ingram and other Moxon & Kobrin/church
representatives were provided with packages of defamatory materials
about me. The perjurious First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration was
the central piece in these packages and resulting visits. Moxon and
Abelson were actively involved. See, e.g: Chronology, April1, 1994-May
24,1994 (pp.19/2-9/26). The packages were provided to, and visits made
to, most of my friends, clients, partners, firms' clients, political
contacts, judges, educational officials and others. The
"investigation" [to "haunt" me] extended across the US (it was
particularly active in Los Angeles and New York, places in which I am
a member of the bar), Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand (places
where I have either lived or practiced law or both). Ingram's
"investigations", and those of the numerous other firms of private
investigators hired by Bowles & Moxon/Moxon & Bartilson/Moxon &
Kobrin, did cause many of my friends and others to fear what he might
do with their own employers unless they "disconnected" from (severed
contact with) me. The annual fundraiser I had co-sponsored is no
longer held. Ingram had made a false police report against 17 of the
attendees. Many of the attendees were judges, local politicians and
lawyers. Accordingly, the Bowles & Moxon/Moxon & Bartilson/Moxon &
Kobrin/Ingram "investigation" of me has almost totally destroyed my
network of college (high school in the US) and university friendships,
other friendships and acquaintances, professional and peer
relationships. Thus, my professional, social, recreational, charitable
and political activities have been nearly eliminated, as was the
collective intention of certain of the Real Parties In Interest
(including California admitted attorneys). Clearly, the involved
lawyers violated a number of State Bar Rules including Rule 3-200 (A).
Indeed Ingram, as well as Beverly Hills attorney Jeffrey W.
Steinberger and State Assemblyman Baldwin of San Diego, called a
television and press conference, apparently in an unsuccessful effort
to have the LAPD arrest me for the pedophilia which was falsely
alleged in the First Cipriano Declaration and to try and protect the
publication of the defamation through the litigation privilege. Church
representatives (e.g. Farny, Ingram, Moxon, Edwin Richardson and
others) made over thirteen unsuccessful complaints to the New York and
California Bar Associations. Amazingly, in March 2001,while pressuring
the State Bar to proceed herein, Moxon & Kobrin, through their agent,
Ingram stated that they knew highly personal details about my friend
Jane Scott's life (and mine) and attempted to defame me to my friend,
Jane Scott's, closest friends. Clearly, this was done in an effort to
have Ms. Scott "disconnect" from me, thus furthering Moxon & Kobrin's
seven year application of the scientology enterprises' Fair Game
policies and practices as directed against me. Obviously, this was
done for the purpose of "destroying" me in accordance with
church/client directives, but in breach of applicable Rules of
Professional Conduct. See Rule 3-200 (A).

Eventually in early 1998, goaded on by church operatives, I
sued Cipriano and various church representatives (including Isadore
Chait, Donna Casselman, Russell Shaw and Glenn Barton) for defamation
and other torts. These were the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige,
(Moxon and Abelson) cases. Despite being percipient witnesses,
culpable parties and announced eventual defendants, Moxon and Ingram
solicited the legal representation of Cipriano (and probably the
representation of other clients and defendants such as Barton, Chait,
Shaw and Casselman) and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash,
for personal and business expenses, for a IRS ? 501(c)(3) "charity"
which Cipriano and Moxon & Kobrin established (in consultation with
members of the Paul, Hastings law firm) to have Cipriano maintain and
embellish the original blackmailed perjury alleging my pedophilia.
Rules 1-400(C), (D), 3-310,4-210.The various multiple layers of
non-waivable conflicts of interest and ethics breaches were never
discussed with Cipriano. Moxon ignored Cipriano's April 1998, request
that the case be settled immediately on my proposed terms. See
Privilege Brief, Chronology. See also: Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-200,
4-210; Sections 6068,6106, and 6151,6152. Several years earlier, Moxon
had engaged in similar conduct and breaches when he solicited the
representation of Jason Scott through whom he conducted the Church of
Scientology's successful scheme to bankrupt and take-over the Cult
Awareness Network. See also: Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-100,2-111,
2-200, 4-210; Sections 6068,6106, and 6151,6152. Moxon paid Cipriano
hundreds of thousands of dollars in living and business expenses and
even went into business with him offering up to $750,000.00 for
Cipriano's continued co-operation in Berry v. Cipriano, Barton,
Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson). See Rules
3-300,3-310,3-400,4-210,5-210,5-220.See Chronology, Privilege Brief,
Double Crossed. The church itself has written policies permitting and
encouraging Moxon [and all scientologists] to lie to protect the
"greater good" of the Church of Scientology and him [Moxon] as an
individual scientologist!)

New York attorney Samuel Rosen, Barbara Reeves and Michael
Turrill of the large Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker law firm were
retained to take a lead role in the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige
litigation. They filed appearances and served a deposition subpoena on
me without even waiting to be served with the complaint. Judge
Hiroshige dismissed their demurrer and CCP Section 425.17 (SLAPP)
motion. Together, Moxon, Barton, and Paul, Hastings had the case moved
to Hon. Alexander H. Williams. Cipriano has testified that Moxon
claimed Judge Williams was a "friend" of the church. Just before the
vexatious litigant hearing on August 20,1999, it became clear that the
judge's fianc?e also worked for defendant Church of Scientology
International itself. Indeed she worked for the very same branch of
the church that employs Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson and Ingram!
They were counsel to a number of different parties, proposed parties
and material witnesses. This did not concern Judge Williams (who
refused to recuse himself in connection to the contrived vexatious
litigant proceeding) and it demonstrably does not concern the
California State Bar See Rules 2-101(B), (C), 3-200,3-300,3-310,
5-101,5-102,5-210,7-103;Section 6108 (c), (d), (f), (g); Sections
6103, 6106. Additionally, the Paul, Hastings firm, had just employed
the judge's most recent law clerk.

The church defendants were also represented by the Los Angeles firms
of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman (Gary S. Soter, Esq.) and Simke
Chodos (David Chodos, Esq. and James Martin, Esq.), William T.
Drescher, Esq., and Elliot Abelson, Esq. In addition, the Washington,
DC, law firm of Williams & Connolly (Gerald Feffer) and
MoniqueYingling, of yet another Washington, DC, law firm, represented
the church defendants. Gerald Feffer is also personally well
acquainted with Judge Williams. Moxon admitted that he had known for
years that Respondent was threatening to sue in connection with the
First Cipriano Declaration. From the first day it was known that Moxon
and Abelson were to be the subjects of subsequent Civ.Code ? 1714.10
motions to add them as co-conspiring defendants. Moreover, they were
also major percipient and material witnesses. Rules 3-300,3-310,3-700,
5-210,5-220.These ethical and tactical issues did not deter Moxon from
being a lead defense counsel and this most certainly was not disclosed
to his client, Cipriano or the multiple other clients (e.g. Chait,
Casselman, etc.) that he was actually representing in the same
proceedings where he was also one of the most material witnesses and
to be added as a defendant. In addition, Moxon surreptitiously "ghost
wrote" papers for another of his perjury sources, convicted murderer
serving life, Bernard Le Geros. Moxon's chief investigator had visited
Le Geros in an Upper New York State jail and obtained a perjurious Le
Geros Declaration. See Rules 3-300, 3-310, 5-210. Respondent did not
even know Le Geros or his criminal accomplice (Andrew Crispo) .Le
Geros filed death threats directed at Respondent during the Berry v.
Cipriano proceedings. Judge Williams ignored them. Moxon continued to
ghostwrite the Le Geros pleadings and motions.

Paul, Hastings and Moxon & Kobrin pursued a brutal and crushing motion
and deposition strategy in the Berry cases. Paul, Hastings' client was
Glenn Barton, a Church of Scientology staff member earning
approximately $50 per week. Moxon now represents Barton. Barton was
alleged to be one of a group of scientologists responsible for
initially and continuously posting the highly defamatory First
Cipriano Declaration to the Internet. Rosen, billing nearly $500 per
hour, headed a team of at least four expensive Paul, Hastings
attorneys. I was required to pay crippling private judge's fees
despite my lack of means. Judge Williams was "persuaded" that the
defendants had discovery "priority". Judge Williams told the Paul,
Hastings counsel that being a former federal prosecutor they knew more
about civil procedure than he. Rosen erroneously convinced the Judge
that there was discovery priority in California that there was no
trial setting priority for defamation proceedings and so I was
precluded from taking depositions until Paul, Hastings and Moxon had
completed theirs. I was unable to take a single deposition during this
defense onslaught. I was also ordered to, "just sit there and take
it," by the judge who permitted me to be deposed for over 14 days. He
ordered me to answer over 2,000 interrogatories, to produce many
dozens of boxes of documents and to permit numerous other depositions.
I was expressly ordered that I could not assert any privacy
objections. Meanwhile, I was afforded virtually no discovery. There
was even testimony, by a former Paul Hastings' employee, that certain
attorneys in the Paul, Hastings law firm had been paying $300.00 to
have court documents back-dated. Remarkably, Judge Williams ignored
it. However, several non-church defendants (including Dr. Mathilde
Krim and Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard) settled with me for an
aggregate sum of $100,000.This went to my fledgling law firm and
mortgages.

Moxon, Wager, and Ingram, aided by Cipriano, then procured a
transvestite
"Street hustler", Anthony Apodaca, and videotaped him falsely alleging
that I had hired him to engage in sadomasochistic sexual practices
with me. See Privilege Brief, Chronology. Rule 3-200,Sections 6068 and
6106. The Paul, Hastings law firm also tried to use Apodaca to
testify in the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case. When
Moxon introduced this videotape in my deposition in the Berry v.
Hurtado state court case, I denied ever having seen Apodaca before.
Section 6068 and 6106. In Apodaca's deposition, in the Hurtado v.
Berry case, Anthony Apodaca also denied ever having seen me and
claimed that a lawyer had come to LA County Jail and had given him
$300.00 and other benefits to testify falsely against me. See exhibits
to Privilege Brief. Recently, prominent Santa Monica criminal defense
attorney and Los Angeles County Criminal Bar Association President,
Donald Wager, Esq., testified that it was he who went to the LA County
jail to pay Anthony Apodaca the $300.00 and that he believed that
Moxon, who represents the Church of Scientology, reimbursed him. See
Wager Deposition Transcript, Chronology). Also see: Rules
1-120,1-400(C), 2-100,3-310,4-210,5-210,5-220, Sections 5-104, 6068
(c), (d), (g), 6150,6151,etc.

Moxon's motion to dismiss (on behalf of Can Reform Group "publisher"
Chait) for my alleged failure to "adequately" respond to over 2,000
form interrogatories that Judge Williams ordered answered, was
granted. The Judge invited further terminating motions. I was forced
by the overwhelming and judicially sanctioned discovery barrage to
immediately and voluntarily dismiss the rest of the litigation without
prejudice (as against Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige [Moxon and Abelson],
etc.). This was before Hurtado and Apodaca's depositions could be
taken in the Berry/ Barton/ Miscavige / (Moxon/ Abelson/Ingram) cases
as Moxon, Rosen, Reeves and Turrill were expressly intent on doing.
Sections 6068 and 6106. These dismissals (although in consolidated
litigation) provided much of the contrived basis for the
Chaleff/Moxon/Rosen/Chodos erroneous vexatious litigant ruling -
effectively preventing me from ever again suing, in pro per, the
church as well as Moxon, Ingram, etc., for procuring and permanently
publishing the First Cipriano "pedophilia" Declaration; thereby
effectively ending my legal career and ultimately leading to the loss
of my home and vehicle. See August 20,1999 Transcript.
Meanwhile, during the Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case,
Paul, Hastings and Moxon had insisted that I provide the identities of
various pro bono clients and that I testify as to whether I had had
sex with any of them. Judge Williams had ruled that I could not assert
any privacy objections or refusals to answer! I am an openly gay man
who, when forced to, testified that I had had a sexual relationship
with then 24-year old, Michael Hurtado, who I had subsequently
represented on several misdemeanors. At the time, Hurtado was my
client in another matter. Rule 2-100. Moxon's chief investigator
Ingram took my Berry v. Cipriano, et al. testimony to Hurtado's
parents. He then took Hurtado's parents to Wager's law office to meet
with Wager and Moxon as well as with him. Mr. and Mrs. Hurtado were
shown the First Cipriano Declaration and were persuaded that I was a
"pedophile" who may have "molested" their irrefutably adult son, my
then client, Michael. See: Rules 1-120,1-400(C),
2-100,3-310,4-210,5-210,5-220, State Bar Act sections 5-104, 6068 (c),
(d), (f), (g), 6106, 6150,6151,etc.

Without even discussing the claims with their son Michael, Mr. and
Mrs. Hurtado agreed to retain Moxon and Wager to sue me. I would be
discharged as Hurtado's counsel and replaced by Wager. Later, Moxon
and Wager met with Michael Hurtado himself who was my current client.
Rule 2-100.They told him that there was money to be made, and had him
agree to go along with the plan. Rule 3-200,Section 6068 and
6106.Michael Hurtado has testified that he relied solely upon the
First Cipriano ["pedophilia"] Declaration in agreeing to be part of
Moxon's, Wager and Ingram's solicitations to sue me.C.C.P. ?128.7,
F.R.Civ.P.Rule 11. The numerous material inconsistencies between
Hurtado's two verified complaints, his discovery responses and
deposition testimony were minor compared with the total contradiction
of material allegations by numerous other, unrelated witnesses. See
Privilege Brief, Chronology [December 1998 -July 17,2001 pp 42-
84/98]. See also, Rules 1-120,1-400 (C), 2-200,6068,6106,
6151,6152.According to testimony, my phones were then unlawfully
tapped (again) and my calls unlawfully taped by Ingram, Moxon and
Wager. See Privilege Brief, Chronology. Although there were no
cross-complaints were asserted in the Berry cases, Paul, Hastings and
Moxon improperly had Judge Williams compel me (Plaintiff) to provide
discovery as to my malpractice and all other insurance coverages and
those of my prior law firms. Moxon and Paul, Hastings (Samuel D.Rosen,
Barbara Reeves and Michael Turrill) tried to use Apodaca against me in
deposition. Hurtado, at the solicitation of Moxon, was also expected
to testify in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige [Moxon,
Abelson] cases. Again, Rosen, Reeves and Turrill of Paul, Hastings
were demonstrably involved.

However, when I was forced into a voluntary dismissal of the
Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) case, and into bankruptcy,
Moxon [later joined by Wager] immediately filed Hurtado v. Berry in
state court and Moxon and Jerry Bregman, Esq., subsequently filed the
same case as an adversary action in the Federal Bankruptcy Court.
These attorneys then made a $700,000 settlement demand upon my
insurance carrier, CNA. Thus, they engaged in both bankruptcy fraud
and attempted insurance fraud! See Insurance Code sections 1871.7 and
550.

Later, Wager withdrew from the state court Hurtado litigation and was
replaced by Thomas S. Byrnes, Esq. Subsequent lesser insurance
proceeds settlement demands followed until Moxon and Thomas Byrnes,
Esq., voluntarily and unilaterally dismissed the State court Hurtado
case on February 6, 2001 - shortly after the damning and
self-incriminating Wager deposition testimony. Until July 10, 2001,the
Hurtado litigation remained pending in Federal Bankruptcy Court where
Moxon, Bregman and Paul, Hastings had been pursuing adversary actions
against me based upon the orders obtained through criminal fraud in
the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) and Pattinson
v. Miscavige/Church of Scientology cases. Bregman has never properly
withdrawn from his representation and involvement against me. He just
"dropped out" and disappeared from his offices, which are now closed.

After Moxon and Wager filed Hurtado v. Berry in state court,
Wager, Abelson and Ingram met with Detective Petz of the West
Hollywood Sheriff's Department and made a false criminal complaint
seeking my arrest and indictment over the attorney solicited and
perjured Hurtado allegations. Rule 3-200, Section 6068,6106. After an
investigation, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office declined to
proceed with an indictment and prosecution of me. Wager also used
Hurtado's perjury to make a motion to the Santa Monica court to change
Hurtado's drug diversion plea. Section 6068 and 6106. The motion
papers then "disappeared" from the Santa Monica Court files! Upon
review of the Wager motion on Hurtado's behalf, the presiding judge
properly referred the allegations (albeit perjurious) to the State
Bar. This triggered yet another scientology instigated California
State Bar complaint against me. Rule 3-200,Section 6068,6106.

The "disappearance" of Hurtado's motion from the court's files
as described above is deserving of further comment in light of the
fact that, remarkably and undoubtedly not coincidentally, other court
files relating to these matters have also "disappeared" from the
court's files! In Berry v. Cipriano I filed a motion for contempt and
for terminating sanctions against Moxon for his repeated use of a
fraudulently altered document. Twice I filed this motion and twice it
"disappeared". Considering the sworn testimony of the former Paul,
Hastings employee previously delineated herein, I find these seemingly
unrelated events remarkably coincidental.

Cipriano also testified that in December 1998, while the
Hurtado/Ingram, Wager, Moxon and Abelson shenanigans were occurring,
that Moxon was also having improper communications with my then law
partners Stephen J. Lewis and Christian Scali. Suddenly and
surprisingly on December 31, 1998, they dissolved the firm. Wager was
already billing Moxon for his representation of Hurtado, with whom he
had not yet even met! Chronology, December 1998,page 49/63.
In early January 1999, as I faced a solid month of depositions and
discovery responses, Judge Williams permitted my two former partners
to withdraw from representing me on only four days' notice. I was not
permitted significant discovery relief. Paul, Hastings (through
Barbara Reeves, Esq) and Moxon started harassing and threatening me
with the depositions of Apodaca and Hurtado. Overwhelmed by events,
and the abusive discovery demands and orders, I was unable to timely
respond to Judge Williams' satisfaction. In early February 1999 Moxon
filed a successful motion to terminate the Chait portion of the Barton
case on the basis of my alleged discovery abuse (being unable to
respond to the unceasing avalanches of written discovery and demands
for revised responses to literally thousands of interrogatories).
Paul, Hastings said, on behalf of Barton, that they would be next to
file a motion to terminate on the basis of my alleged discovery abuse
[default]. Judge Williams granted the Moxon motion for terminating
sanctions (and later, on the same basis, Moxon's and Chaleff's
vexatious litigant petition). Almost immediately, Moxon and Wager
filed the Hurtado v. Berry cases. Moxon served me, in court, moments
before I took to my feet to oppose Moxon's Rule 11 motion in Pattinson
v. Miscavige.Chronogy, April 5,1999,page 63/77.

At this juncture, Barbara Reeves, Esq., then of the Paul, Hastings law
firm, persuaded me that scientology's leader, David Miscavige, wanted
to engage in "serious settlement discussions." However, she made it
clear that Miscavige would not talk without my voluntarily dismissing
(without prejudice) the Miscavige/Moxon portion of the
Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige cases. I did so. In spite of my acquiescing
to her request, no serious discussion was held in connection with any
settlement. However, and clearly the point of the entire exercise,
scientology then had sufficient dismissals with which to make a
specious motion that I should lose certain of my civil rights upon the
erroneous argument that I am a vexatious litigant for filing and
pursuing the Berry v. Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) and
Pattinson v. Miscavige/Church of Scientology cases. Perhaps not so
coincidentally, Ms. Reeves and Mr. Terrill resigned from the Paul,
Hastings law firm shortly afterwards.

As stated above, Moxon & Wager served the Hurtado v. Berry lawsuit on
me as I took to my feet, in Pattinson v. Miscavige to argue against a
successful Paul, Hastings and Moxon & Kobrin Rule 11 Motion relying
heavily upon the improperly obtained sanctions rulings obtained from
Judge Williams in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/ Miscavige/
(Moxon/Abelson) cases. The Pattinson v. Miscavige case never
progressed beyond the complaint. Subsequently, they also relied upon
the vexatious litigant ruling of Judge Williams. Thus, upon the basis
of their crimes and fraud upon the court in
Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson), they ultimately persuaded
Judge Snyder to sanction me with the $56,000 that the church had paid
Paul, Hastings, to briefly represent Moxon in the Pattinson v.
Miscavige[ Church of Scientology] case. The court held that it was
reasonable for the Moxon/Scientology to hire among the most expensive
of New York lawyers to defend what are now alleged to be "unjust"
actions.

In essence, the sanctions award in Pattinson v. Miscavige related to
the single allegation that Moxon was engaged in criminal conduct on
behalf of the Church of Scientology. There was absolutely no finding
in connection with the substantive merits of the rest of the Pattinson
v. Miscavige lawsuit. Notwithstanding, upon Wager and Gerner pressure,
the State Bar charges that the entire Pattinson v. Miscavige was
"maintaining an unjust action." See: NIC Count Ten; Complainant's
correspondence. Judge Snyder's Rule 11 order expressly relied upon,
and quoted the language of, Judge Williams' vexatious litigant ruling
and hearing comments. Additionally, Paul, Hastings on behalf of
Barton, obtained a $28,000 costs order against me from Judge Williams.
This is the same Barton who participated in the continuing worldwide
publication of the original and perjurious First Cipriano
["pedophilia"] Declaration. [During the same time period, Barton (and
scientology investigator Edwin Richardson) physically attacked and
made a citizen's arrest of my client, Keith Henson. Barton, who was
then LAPD scientology "chaplain", was subsequently dismissed,
following a complaint by Mr. Henson, from the LAPD.]
Moxon then took over the representation of Barton and started pursuing
me with bank levies to collect the Barton $28,000 costs' order [NIC
Counts One to Three]. In other words, Kendrick Moxon, Esq. engaged in
extortion through his agent Ingram and obtained the First Cipriano
["pedophilia"] Declaration full of admitted perjury by blackmail.
Elliot Abelson, Esq. Kendrick Moxon, Esq., Ingram, Barton, Chait and
Shaw published it world wide as did Miscavige through the church. Then
when I sued, Moxon (engaging in solicitation and multiple actual
unwaivable and unwaived conflicts of interest) successfully drove me
out of the lawsuit using further blackmail, bribery and other serious
criminal, tortious, abuse of process and unethical conduct. Thus,
Moxon engaged in serious felony crimes and, with the active assistance
of several of the Real Parties In Interest such as lawyers
Rosen/Reeves/Terrill, Soter and Chodos/Miller. They perpetrated frauds
upon the underlying courts and then obtained a fraudulent, tainted
judgment for his co-conspirators' defense costs. Next, with the
assistance of Chaleff (then Chairman of the L.A.P.D.Police
Commission), they used that fraudulently obtained judgment to have me
declared a vexatious litigant and to pursue me for defense costs
arising from terminations procured by crime and fraud upon both the
courts and upon me. Indeed, Moxon unabashedly continues to use these
"fruits of the poisonous tree" to engage in unlawful conduct to
"punish" me as an "enemy" of the Church of Scientology.

Moxon's then five-year crusade to "utterly destroy" me "by any means
possible" has taken its toll on me and I would be a liar if I were to
suggest that it had not. I was, and am, under medical treatment
(commencing mid-1998) for severe depression and I was previously
drinking heavily. By January 1999, the church - Moxon & Kobrin and
their hired guns such as Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker; Williams &
Connolly; Ingram and others had totally and maliciously overwhelmed me
in every sense of that word. Indeed, the concept of "overwhelm" is a
significant part of the written church Fait Game Policies and
Practices that were used to "utterly destroy" me and to "cause [my]
professional demise." On April 25, 1999, my friend and some-time legal
assistant, Jane Scott, intervened with regard to my abuse of alcohol,
and I sought help from Alcoholics Anonymous. I have been free of
alcohol ever since.

In the meantime, in June 1999, Moxon no longer needed Cipriano
and stopped paying for all of his living and business expenses. (Rules
3-300, 4-210). Cipriano realized that Ingram, Moxon, Barton, Chait and
the church had exploited him. He came to me and confessed the truth to
me. He wrote a long declaration, corroborated by various financial and
other documents, detailing the frauds, crimes and obstruction of
justice that Moxon and Paul, Hastings engaged in order to force me out
of the Cipriano/ Barton /Miscavige/ (Moxon/Abelson/Ingram) cases and
to incur the resulting costs and other sanctions' orders against me
for having sued Cipriano, Barton and Miscavige (Moxon/Abelson/
Ingram). Moxon. Paul, Hastings and the rest of the attorney army
accomplished this on the eve of my filing of a Civ.Code ? 1714.10
motion to add Moxon and Abelson as named defendants.
Subsequently, after "confessing", Cipriano was taken into Moxon's
"custody". At Mr. Cipriano's request, Jane Scott and I rescued him
moments before Moxon's agents arrived to take him "away". The idea
that he was going to be taken away by Moxon's agents was a concept
that truly terrified Mr. Cipriano! The Church of Scientology then
hired then LA Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe to argue a Petition to Declare [me] to be a
Vexatious Litigant for having sued Cipriano/ Barton / Miscavige (and
shortly Moxon/Abelson).

Kendrick Moxon, Samuel Rosen, David Chodos and Gary Soter also
joined in Gerald Chaleff's contrived and aerobic vexatious litigant
motion. This was the only appearance in the entire litigation by
Gerald Chaleff, Esq., and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. Cipriano
also filed opposition to the Petition of his former lawyers, Moxon and
Soter. They continued on against the written opposition of their
former client, Cipriano.See Rule 3-310.Indeed to this day (25 months
later), Moxon has not returned Cipriano's files in spite of the fact
that Cipriano has repeatedly demanded their return. Section 6068 (n).
In fact, on behalf of Cipriano, I made several requests for the return
of his files. At no time did I engage in any conflicts of interest; I
represented Mr. Cipriano only for the very limited and unsuccessful
purpose of getting his files returned from the Moxon & Kobrin firm
(and others).

Cipriano and I filed a motion to recuse Judge Williams, in
part, because it had just been learned that Judge Williams' fianc?e
worked for Moxon's actual client, the moving party, Church of
Scientology International. Earlier it was mistakenly understood to be
Bridge Publications, Inc., which employed her. However, and amazingly,
the transcript read differently. Judge Williams refused either to
recuse himself or to follow the mandatory procedure for the handling
of such motions. See Petition for Mandate. Observers remarked that it
was "a hangin' court hell bent upon a lynchin'" just to satisfy
certain influential lawyers (LAPD Commission Chairman Chaleff,
Rosen/Reeves/Paul Hastings, etc.). Judge Williams refused to allow
Robert Cipriano to participate in this proceeding despite it being in
Berry v. Cipriano /Barton/ Miscavige/ (Moxon/Abelson). The judge did
this despite notices being filed and accepted in connection with
Cipriano's written termination of representation by Moxon & Kobrin and
Wasserman, Comden & Casselman. Over the objections of their former
client, Cipriano, they were permitted to proceed with their Petition
to have me declared a vexatious litigant! See Rule 3-310.The judge
refused to proceed with a C.C.P. 877.6 motion for good faith
determination of a settlement between Cipriano and myself.
Judge Williams said that he had read the new (August 6, 1999) Cipriano
declaration (detailing the massive crimes and frauds upon the court)
and that it was "irrelevant". See August 20,1999 Transcript. In
declaring me to be a vexatious litigant, Judge Williams amazingly
stated that he was in his "final term", had been "re-elected" and was,
" . . . like a federal judge in a state court." In short, Judge
Williams ignored criminal acts procuring a false statement that
instigated a legitimate lawsuit. Judge Williams then declared me to be
a vexatious litigant for seeking relief based upon those same criminal
and civil violations of the law by Moxon, Abelson, Ingram, Scientology
and others. As if to underscore the clearly erroneous decision
unappealable as of right, Judge Williams said, "It is not what you did
but they way in which you did it." However, it must be noted that that
is not the applicable statutory standard.

I appealed [Berry v. Cipriano, B134724 Div.7]. The Court of Appeals
ignored my complying brief, expressly extended time to respond, and
then prematurely dismissed the appeal before the extension date.
Suffering from severe depression, overwhelmed, losing faith in what I
had previously presumed to be the integrity of judges and lawyers,
unable to afford even the transcript and copying costs on appeal, I
had little choice but to accept the outrageous situation, at least
momentarily.

Meanwhile, Moxon and Rosen of Paul, Hastings were using Judge
Williams' vexatious litigant order, and excerpts from the judge's
transcribed "comments" to convince other courts to issue sanctions and
costs awards against me. In so doing, they were using a criminally and
fraudulently procured result in Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/
Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) as the basis for misrepresentations to other
courts that I should be similarly treated there. It is hard to imagine
more reprehensible violations of F.R. Civ. P. Rule 11, C.C.P. ? 128.7
and the Rules of Professional Conduct - not to mention a variety of
serious felony crimes and torts. Moxon even provided a declaration for
use in a case in which he had absolutely no involvement or
participation, arguing that I should also be sanctioned there- Anders
v. Northwestern Mutual Life). See Interrogatories, Count Nine
(dismissed 9/24/01). This is the Ninth Count which the State Bar
dismissed on September 24,2001. Again, Moxon cited the various remarks
and attacks by Judge Williams upon me, as well as remarks and attacks
made on the basis of misrepresentations to Judge Williams by Chaleff,
Rosen, Chodos and Moxon. Indeed, Chaleff's representations were not
made on the basis of any personal knowledge. Curiously and no doubt
significantly, Moxon identified Chairman of the Police Commission
Chaleff as his own [Moxon's] lawyer! The Los Angeles County Sheriff
could not get the deputy District Attorney to focus on the Cipriano
and Hurtado materials Then District Attorney Garcetti refused to
investigate for political reasons. The Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) could not determine which of their departments should handle the
matter and the U.S. Attorney-General Janet Reno could not determine
what I wanted done regarding the Cipriano criminal matters! It appears
that things are changing under a new administration.

All of this crushing litigation, by so many high priced,
high powered national law firms on scientology's payroll, and had
pushed me into personal bankruptcy. Kendrick Moxon, Helena Kobrin, Eva
Paquette and Samuel Rosen of Paul, Hastings, then pursued me in
Bankruptcy Court. Moxon, Barton and the Church of Scientology all
filed adversary actions vigorously seeking non-dischargeability of the
costs and sanctions orders that had been obtained as a result of
felony crimes and frauds in the scientology-related
Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson), Pattinson and Jeavons
cases. Their litigation costs have vastly exceeded, by many multiples,
the aggregate value of those ill-gotten claims. Clearly they seek to
profit from their own misconduct. See, Civil Code Sections
3517,3520,3523.

The Bankruptcy Court has already ruled that the Moxon (Count
Four-Pattinson v. Miscavige) and Church of Scientology (Count
Seven-Jeavons) costs/sanctions awards are non-dischargeable in
bankruptcy as a consequence of recent appellate decision. However, it
did so before the newly discovered evidence in the just-dismissed
Hurtado v. Berry case. Moxon/Paquette/Barton now seek a similar ruling
with regard to Barton's expenses in the Berry v. Cipriano/ Barton/
Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) litigation. Clearly, either the tax - exempt
Church of Scientology International or the group-exempt International
Association of Scientologists paid these expenses, in relation to the
commission of massive serious felony criminal and civil misconduct.
On the bright side, the evidence herein, when coupled with some of the
evidence that Judge Brott has stricken from this Court's record,
clearly establishes that the Church of Scientology has perpetrated the
largest ever financial fraud on the United States Government in
connection with it's 1991 application for tax free status and the 1993
"conditional" IRS grant of tax free status (with which to wage the
domestic "psycho-terrorism " described herein and it's W.I.S.E.
"Albania Project" where other terrorist monies have also been routed).
In 1993 the IRS relieved the Church of Scientology corporately, and
certain of it's leaders personally, of over one billion dollars in
past due taxes, penalties and interest. Moxon and certain private
investigators were instrumental in securing the 'materials' that
convinced the then Commissioner to do a 25-year about face and
immediately grant the tax-free status. Apparently, Church of
Scientology attorney Moxon paid over a million dollars to his
"investigator" to obtain the necessary 'evidence' to show the
Commissioner. The Church of Scientology specially honored him. If the
Federal Government accepts the two smoking guns, and agrees to
proceed, the past due taxes, interest, penalties and fines could
provide substantial monies to rebuild New York. Perhaps as much as six
to ten billion dollars. See generally: Scientology's Puzzling Journey
From Tax Rebel To Tax Exempt, Douglas Frantz, The New York Times,
March 9,1997;Scientologits and I.R.S. Settled For $12.5 Million,
Elizabeth McDonald, The Wall Street Journal, December 30,1997.
[http://wpx02.toxi.uni-wuerzberg.de/~cowen/essays/wj301297.html]

As Tony Ortega noted in his New Times LA article, "Double
Crossed", in the December 16-22, 1999, edition, Kendrick Moxon, had a
serious problem explaining the source(s) of the funds used to commit
these massive crimes and torts as well as a clear problem explaining
exactly how it was that Michael Hurtado had found him and his firm
amongst the thousands of lawyers in Los Angeles County.
. . . But when Moxon was asked about the [Cipriano exhibits], he
balked, refusing to answer questions about why he sent $20,000 on
Cipriano's behalf [to erase his criminal record] or about where the
money came from ... Moxon refused to answer New Times questions about
how he became Hurtado's attorney. New Times LA, "Double Crossed",
December 16 - 22,1999.

Hurtado, the church's "pawn", has fared badly since joining forces
with Moxon, Paquette, Abelson, Kobrin, Wager, Byrnes and Ingram.
Hurtado has had numerous subsequent arrests and imprisonments.
Currently, he is back in LA County Jail, to serve a three year
sentence, after the revocation of his five year probation term arising
from being arrested while passed out drunk in a woman's bedroom closet
holding a butcher's knife, while awaiting her return. Additionally,
Moxon's "investigator", Ingram, tried to intimidate Hurtado's victim
into not testifying against Hurtado. Ingram's actions cost the victim
her job, but she steadfastly refused to be intimidated and refused to
drop her prosecution of Hurtado. Ingram, Abelson, Moxon, Kobrin,
Paquette, Rosen, Wager and Byrnes (as well as others) have now cost me
my career, condominium, car and comradeship. Few want Moxon's
"investigator", Ingram, to visit their employers and provide copies of
the now demonstrable perjurious and defamatory First Cipriano
["pedophilia"] Declaration and related materials, which they still
circulate about me even after their having been repeatedly recanted.
Amazingly, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette continue to pursue me before the
Bankruptcy Court and the State Bar, relying on what are clearly the
"fruits of the poisonous tree" and therefore frauds upon the various
courts. The Church of Scientology has a defined word for this,
"crim-mind" or the "criminal mind". In essence, it calls for the
church's representatives to accuse others of what the church and its
representatives are guilty of themselves. They are also taught to tell
"acceptable truths" and to lie ["On Control and Lying" and "Hatting
the Witness"].

In terms of recent events, when Real Parties In Interest dismissed the
Hurtado v. Berry state court case rather than receive a ruling that
the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied,
Elliot Abelson, Esq. stated that they should never have filed the
Hurtado v. Berry litigation. Nevertheless, that was what they and
their clients had chosen to do. In addition, Ingram would finally have
to testify about the seven-year Church of Scientology/Ingram/Moxon &
Kobrin operation to professionally and personally destroy me after
scientology's crushing defeats in their litigation against Joseph
A.Yanny, Esq., Steven Fishman and Dr. Uwe Geertz and subsequently
other cases that scientology had filed against critics.

Temporarily driven from the law, I took a job with a then-client,
hi-tech start-up, Lumin-oZ, LLP. I no longer work for Lumin-oZ. I
became concerned that there had been fraud perpetrated upon the
minority stockholders, and that the company's founder, who at that
time was my friend, had misappropriated over $150,000. At the same
time, Elliot Abelson, Esq., who works with Moxon at OSA, paid the
founder of Lumin-oZ a visit. I was terminated for "economic reasons".
Elliot Abelson, Esq. then telephoned me, gloated that I had been fired
and said that scientology wanted me back in New Zealand "where your
[my] talents would be better appreciated." I cannot sue to recover the
$28,000 that Lumin-oZ owes me in unpaid salary because lawyers
Chaleff, Moxon, Chodos and Rosen had me declared a vexatious litigant,
which severely limits my access to the courts. Realistically, that is
an order from which one cannot easily appeal. I have offered Moxon,
Kobrin, Paquette, Barton and the church these Lumin-oZ monies owed me.
They have taken no steps to recover them although they have advised
the company not to pay me. I remain under treatment for temporary and
partially disabling depression.

As if all of this were not already bad enough, recently, in late
October 2000, Moxon's oft co-counsel, Samuel D. Rosen, Esq. of Paul,
Hastings commented to a Deputy District Attorney (Riverside, CA) with
whom I was discussing a Scientology case. "Don't talk to Berry. We're
[scientology/Paul Hastings, etc.] having him disbarred." The case I
was discussing was the Henson case (the ninth of ten that the Church
of Scientology has instigated against Mr. Henson). Rosen of Paul,
Hastings and Gerald Feffer of Williams & Connolly were both involved
in the instigation and prosecution of this bogus criminal case against
Mr. Henson in Hemet, CA [Case No. HEM 014371], and had intervened
personally with the Riverside County District Attorney to ensure that
it was filed. Several local investigating sheriffs had reported in
writing that there was no evidence to support such a prosecution,
nevertheless, with correspondence from Gerald Feffer and in court
"coaching" by Samuel Rosen, the District Attorney's office has pursued
it. The third [retired] trial judge, who was acquainted with Elliot
Abelson, Esq. granted scientology's [the Peoples] motion to preclude
almost the entirety of Henson's defense and evidence. Henson was
convicted of "interfering with the practice of a religion" by
picketing outside the scientology "film making facility" Golden Era
Studios [in reality a heavily armed scientology 'gulag' for
're-educating' dissidents [The Rehabilitation Project Force or RPF].
Henson was sentenced to six months in prison. It was reported that
Scientology had instigated baseless prison rumors that Henson was
coming and that he was a child molester. Fearful for his safety and
life, Henson fled to Canada and sought asylum. Scientology reported
that Henson was an armed and dangerous munitions terrorist and a
Canadian SWAT team took him down. Henson was unarmed but spent ten
days in jail before the Scientology false report and connection was
discovered. The Canadian Government has now demanded that the
U.S.State Department investigate what really occurred with lawyers
Abelson, Rosen, Feffer, the Riverside District Attorney and the
retired Hemet judge.

Rosen's record of using the legal system to harass his clients'
litigation opponents is also well documented. In Unique Concepts, Inc.
and Baslow v. Brown, et. al., 115 F.R.D. 292 (DC SDNY 1987) Hon.
Milton Pollack stated he had,

. . . reviewed the transcript of the... deposition attempt; it
is hard to find a page on which Rosen does not intrude on the
examination with a speech, a question to the examiner, or an attempt
to engage in colloquy distracting to the examiner. Rosen's constant
interruptions continue throughout the transcript; his silencing of the
witness and obstructive demands for explanations from the examiner
rendered the deposition worthless and an exercise in futility.

The judge's scathing comments did not end there, "Rosen's conduct was
harassing, wasteful, vexatious, and ruined the usefulness of the
December 30th deposition. It was a sad and embarrassing display of
professionalism." Finally, the noted jurist concluded, "This Court
finds that Rosen's conduct was undertaken in bad faith, intended to
harass and delay, and reflected a willful disregard for the orderly
process of justice."

In Schering Corporation v. Vitarine Pharmaceuticals, 124 F.R.D. 580
(DC NJ 1989), the court also held that Rosen had made false and
misleading representations to the court and had subjected the court
and the other parties to unnecessary expense, procedural and other
burdens and through that brought "everyone to their knees." Id. 590.
Indeed, the court held, ". . . it bears mention that there was nothing
inadvertent about what was represented to [the court by Rosen] and
what transpired as a result."

The court imposed monetary sanctions totaling $150,000 upon Rosen and
his co-counsel holding that, "Rosen, an individual clearly responsible
for the contents of the bulk of those papers and for the oral
representations made to this court, may be sanctioned pursuant to Rule
11." Id.594.

In Cury v. Philip Morris USA, 1195 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14798 (DC SDNY
1995), the Senior District Judge granted a motion in limine to exclude
the deposition of a non-party witness from trial because of Rosen's
deposition misconduct, which deprived opposing counsel of an adequate
opportunity for cross-examination. Rosen's behavior during many weeks
of depositions and hearings in the Berry cases and Pattinson cases
reflects the circumstances and findings in each of these three cases.
Indeed, one might rightfully question what is the objective
justification for bringing a $500 per hour New York intellectual
property counsel, who travels expensively, into numerous California
cases that do not involve his intellectual property specialty?
Clearly, he led the obstruction and travesty of justice that occurred
in the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige/(Moxon/Abelson) cases (and
in other semi - related litigation). The State Bar claims that the
Berry cases were "unjust". However, they apparently were sufficiently
just to require the massive resources of an army of lawyers from
across the nation, survived demurrer, a SLAPP motion to dismiss, and
resulted in two settlements aggregating $100,000.00.There was never a
decision upon the substantive merits of either the Berry consolidated
cases or the Pattinson cases. They were forced into voluntary
dismissal by overwhelming abuse of process and discovery abuse.
Now that I have finally obtained the damning Hurtado v. Berry
evidence that I have been long awaiting, I can proceed to attempt to
undo many of the adverse rulings that Moxon the others of the Real
Parties In Interest obtained through crime and fraud upon the courts.
Indeed, there are clear federal, criminal RICO violations by certain
of the Real Parties In Interest herein.

Further corroboration of the matters herein is also set forth in the
1994 through 1999, declarations of Robert Vaughan Young, Stacy Brooks,
Andre Tabayoyan and Gary Scarff. These deponents separately and
independently testified that they were offered money to recant prior
truthful declarations and fabricate testimony against me. Not
coincidentally, Abelson was directly involved as was Moxon's then law
partner, Timothy Bowles, Esq. Young and Brooks were offered over
$200,000 each. Mr. Scarff, along with his coach Abelson, were
videotaped recanting and fabricating testimony. Mr. Tabayoyan was both
threatened with physical harm and offered $25,000 for the prospective
alteration of his testimony. OSA Chief, Michael Rinder, and senior
Church of Scientology official Michael Sutter were also directly
involved. Many individuals, from various states, who were "visited" by
Moxon & Kobrin's agent, "investigator" Ingram, and other private
investigators hired by Moxon & Kobrin, have also executed
corroborating declarations. Ingram has also been the subject of arrest
warrants issued by at least three different states. One warrant was
issued for impersonating a peace officer, just as he is known to have
done in his blackmailing of Robert Cipriano as detailed above. See
generally, Chronology. As I have already explained above, writing for
publication, about the scientology enterprise, and about what Real
Parties In Interest and their co-conspirators have done to me, and
suing for malicious prosecution and abuse of process are my only
remaining prospects for an appropriate retirement.

As a result of the misconduct of the Real Parties In Interest
herein, my home has been foreclosed upon. I did have the opportunity
for an advantageous sale, but Moxon & Kobrin's and Paquette's Barton
v. Berry Adversary Bankruptcy proceeding, and the consequent closing
complications and delays, caused the cancellation of escrow. As a
result, I have lost approximately $70,000 in equity and approximately
$350,000 in mortgage payments and remain liable on the second mortgage
of approx.$20,000.See Interrogatories, Count Four.

Not only is the State Bar's refusal, to date, to proceed
against Moxon, Abelson, etc. surprising, but so is the State Bar
Court's handling of this matter. It has pre-determined one matter. See
Motion For Reconsideration. It has refused to Continue the December
11,2001 Trial Date despite the contrary medical opinion of my Doctor.
See Motion to Continue Trial. In particular, it has decided that this
case must be tried before the State Bar Deputy Trial Counsel goes on
maternity leave for six months. It has refused to Continue the
December 11,2001 trial date even though Counts One through Three are
result for the complaint of opposing parties in civil litigation, upon
the same matters. The trial in those same civil matters has just been
set for January 28,2001.The State Bar Court refuses to continue the
trial herein contrary to applicable rules and case authority because
the State Bar Deputy Trial Counsels maternity calendar and personal
investment in this case demands it.

The enclosed Interrogatory Responses, although incomplete,
provide factual responses in connection with most of the State Bar's
other Counts herein.

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT LEGAL ISSUES

A. FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER-Counts Four, Five, Seven, Eight.
See Interrogatories pages 17-25,38-44 (49). The State Bar has
just dismissed Count Nine. Each of the four remaining counts of
Failure To Obey a Court Order relate to the non-payment of sanctions
orders in the circumstances outlined above and in the Interrogatory
Responses enclosed herewith. Counts Four, Seven and Eight directly
involve Scientology litigation being conducted with the intention of
"utterly destroying" respondent in accordance with Scientology's
psycho-terror tactics set forth in it's written Fair Game Policies and
Practises.The sanctions holders intentionally engaged in
"psycho-terrorism" and litigation terrorism against Resondent,
intending to drive him into Bankruptcy and permanent unemployment-even
suicide. The sanctions are the product of the felonies, torts and
ethical violations set forth herein and in the enclosed documents. The
perpetrators of that wrongful conduct include complainant Wager and
the principals and other agents of their client the Church of
Scientology.

Indeed, the Count Eight [Rule 11] sanctions were imposed in connection
with pleading allegations that Moxon was engaged in criminal conduct
on behalf of the Church. And while denying so, and obtaining the Count
Eight Rule 11 sanctions within the courtroom, he was concurrently
conducting serious felony crimes against Respondent/opposing counsel
outside the courtroom (e.g. see Chronology and Privilege Brief.)
Accordingly, the Moxon Rule 11 sanctions order is the product of a
fraud upon the court and is void/voidable. [Civil Code ? 3539-"Time
does not confirm a void act."]

Respondent has just been discharged in bankruptcy. He is living on
food stamps, general relief and charity. He is unable ("inability") to
pay. It is impossible for him to pay. " The law never requires
impossibilities." Civil Code ? 3531. Moreover, there are extreme
mitigating factors in connection with Count Five, as set forth in the
Interrogatory Responses.

The State Bar repetitively pleads that "Respondent willfully violated
Business and Professions Code, section 6103,by willfully disobeying an
order of the court requiring him to do or forebear an act connected
with or in the course of Respondent's profession which he ought in
good faith to do or forbear." NIC Counts Four, Five, Seven and Eight.
It has long been settled that willfulness with regard to a rule of
professional does not require proof of an evil intent or purpose, but
merely proof that the attorney intended to do that which the rule
prohibits. Citations omitted.

Matter off Rodriguez (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.480,
489.
This is a unique case of first impression distinguishable on
the facts from all others ever before the Bar. The State Bar offers no
evidence that the Respondent intended/purposefully not to pay the
sanctions. The irrefutable evidence is that Respondent has been
financially unable to do so and actually prevented from doing so.
Primarily because of the actions of the sanctions holders in refusing
to release the Barton lien from his property and thereby causing the
loss of $50-70,000 in real estate equity- much of would have been
available to them. The same recipients were offered, but have failed
to take any steps to recover, unpaid wages due to Respondent of
$28,000, which those same sanction-holders were offered. Indeed, they
advised the creditor of their claim, said not to pay me, and have done
nothing further to collect. Thus, but for the bad faith of the
sanctions holders themselves (Church of Scientology/Barton/Moxon and
Paquette) the sanctions would have been paid. In other words, the
sanction-holders could have received up to $90,000.00, which would
have fully satisfied the sanctions orders, but for the past twelve
months they have refused to release their own liens or take the steps
to recover that $28,000.00. The unpaid sanctions permit continuing
intelligence ("Intel ops") under the guise of Debtors examinations.
Respondent could not sue to recover the $28,000.00 in unpaid salary.
The sanctions holders had obtained a vexatious litigant ruling
permanently preventing him from ever being a plaintiff again-ever.
Again we are in Alice in Wonderland. Scientology engaged in felony
crime and wrongdoing against a litigation opponent to get void orders
including sanctions orders. They then take all possible steps to
prevent him from paying those orders-even with the equity in his real
estate - after they file a State Bar proceeding complaining that he
has intentionally not paid them. It is not Respondent who has acted in
bad faith, it is the sanction holders.

Interestingly, they have received $950.00 improperly in
connection with Count Seven where Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette have already
taken three abusive examinations under oath since February, 2001.Most
recently this week on September 26,2001 in the Jeavons v. Church of
Scientology collection matter. They seized my only vehicle (a 1988
Cherokee) on approx. January 26,2001. I made a Claim for Exemption on
the basis of value and business need. Ava Paquette, Esq. opposed it
and the $1,900.00 statutory exemption. Attorney Paquette's supporting
declaration stated the blue book value to be approx.$8,300.00.Section
6068(d). My declaration recited the blue book value of approx.
$1,800.00. Commissioner Gross denied my motion stating that the
vehicle is not exempt-only the first $1,900.00 in auction proceeds.
That conclusion is not disputed. After April I heard no more. Not even
a report on the sale. The Notice of Sale on record shows the vehicle
was sold on May 11,2001.Recently, Ava Paquette advised Judge Gross
that she had received $950.00 from the sale. On September 26,2001 I
checked the Sheriff's file. I had received no notices because the
documents had changed my address by one single digit. I had received
no proceeds of sale because I owned two cars [never in my life]!
Someone at the DMV had reported to the Sheriff that I owned two cars.
The fine print shows it: Berry Graham E, Santa Monica; Berry Graham
R., Arcadia. I had frequently testified to Moxon and Paquette that I
only own one car. They have me under regular surveillance and
investigation so they would know if I had more than one vehicle. On
May 16,2001 Moxon & Kobrin were sent $942.00 - the entire proceeds of
sale less expenses. They were advised of the sale price. They knew of
the judge's order and statutory exemption. They did and said nothing
until advising the Court earlier this month that she had received
$950.00.I have raised "how?" with her twice. Ms.Paquette has not
explained.

Paragraphs 22, 29, 40 and 47 allege that I ought to have "in
good faith" paid the four orders. This implies I acted in bad faith.
However, "an attorney's disobedience of a court order involves moral
turpitude for disciplinary purposes only if the attorney acted in
either subjective or objective bad faith." Matter of Jeffers (Review
Dept.1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.211. Moreover, Section 6103 is not
a charging provision. Matter of Mapps (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal. State
Bar Ct.Rptr.1; Matter of Kenyon (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal. State Bar
Rptr.267, 276.In other words, there are two prongs to section 6103 and
both must be satisfied by clear and convincing evidence. First, that
"Respondent disobeyed and order of the court; Second, that Respondent
did not act in "good faith." Matter of Respondent X (Review Dept.
1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt. 592

Respondent admits that he has violated Section 6103.He
contends that he has not acted in bad faith. On the contrary he has,
in good faith, tried to make the payments with the proceeds of sale of
his most valuable assets and assignment of a liquidated and admitted
debt. First, during most of the intervening time Respondent has been
on partial and temporary disability, unable to work. Second,
Respondent had been involved in a protracted bankruptcy involving a
multiplicity of adversary proceedings filed by the sanction holders at
a vast legal cost (including expensive New York copyright counsel
Rosen). The legal costs exceed the sanctions amounts by many
multiples. Third, the sanction holders have unreasonably obstructed
(in bad faith) Respondents efforts to close a pre-foreclosure sale of
his property, and collect on the unpaid salary, which would have
substantially if not entirely satisfied the sanctions payments however
voidable. It was Respondents intention to later seek their recovery in
subsequent proceedings for malicious prosecution [Hurtado] and abuse
of process [Cipriano/Barton/Miscavige (Abelson, Moxon) and Hurtado].

In early spring, when apprised of Respondents dire financial
straits, ENEC judge Hon. Michael Marcus suggested Respondent file
motions to vacate the various rulings. Respondent proceeded to prepare
the necessary Chronology of Events.However, Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette
immediately filed a substantial and unsuccessful motion for summary
judgment in connection with Count One through Three herein.
Nonetheless, it kept Respondent pre-occupied until late June. Shortly
after returning to the chronology of events he served discovery in
these proceedings on lawyers Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Abelson, Wager,
Byrnes and Gerner.They filed eight motions in opposition and
Respondent was preoccupied with their papers through early September.
Even though the motions were procedurally and fatally defective for a
number of reasons, Judge Brott engaged in an excess of jurisdiction,
and granted them. Judge Brott also struck all of Respondents'
discovery rights and ordered that Respondent could only conduct
discovery herein upon a court order after having shown good cause by
formal motion. The State Bar then served comprehensive discovery on
myself which, along with the settlement conference, is now fully
engaging me along with the Scientology on-going proceedings in
connection with counts one, two, three and seven. The State Bar and
the State Bar Court refuse to permit me time to file these motions to
vacate the underlying matters. Despite medical opinion stating that I
should not be involved in a trial before another appraisal in
February, the State Bar Court insists this matter be tried before
Ms.Goldade goes on six months maternity leave in late December. I have
offered to remain on inactive status until after she returns to work.
Both she and the court refuse. In essence, my due process rights, and
discovery rights are being held hostage to, and prejudiced by, the
prosecutors maternity schedule. Only recently have I become aware of
the decisions in Matter of Respondent Y (Review Dept.1998) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rptr.862, Matter of Boyne (Review Dept.1993) 2 Cal. State
Bar Ct.Rptr. 389.

For the foregoing reasons, Respondent should receive either no
or only minor discipline in connection with these counts.
" Even though an attorney's willful violation of his statutory duty to
obey orders issued in connection with his profession is stated grounds
for disbarment or suspension, discpline within that range is not
mandated. Thus, in light of the unusual circumstances surrounding
respondent's violation of this duty, a private reproval was the
appropriate level of discipline."

Matter of Respondent X (Review Dept.1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.
592.
In addition, not only must the State Bar prove disciplinary
charges by clear and convincing evidence but also " all reasonable
doubts must be resolved in favor of the respondent." Kapelus v. State
Bar (1987) 44 Cal.3d 179, 184, fn.1. "Culpability must not be
debateable."Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52 Cal.3d 276,289.

B. ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST-COUNT SIX

See Interrogatories pages 25-37. The facts and some of
mitigating circumstances are set fully forth in those Interrogatory
Responses. On those facts, Respondent contends that he did not violate
Rule 3-310(C)(2) as alleged. Alternatively, and again upon the facts
set forth in the Interrogatory Responses, any violation was of brief
duration and de minims in that rightly or wrongly Respondent took
little or no role in maintaining the action after the Kaleel family
failed to sign the retainer agreement containing a conflict of
interest waiver. Also, he was so emotionally traumatized by
scientology's "psycho-terror" activities that he did not even oppose
the issuance of the relevant court order. He now desires the
time/opportunity to do so.

Only in rare circumstances does an attorney owe a third party
of duty of care. Primarily in the fields of wills and trusts and the
preparation of financial and similar documents on which third parties
(e.g. corporate investors) might forseeably rely
Respondent is unaware of any authority holding that a third party
fiduciary duty is owed to adverse parties in litigation.

Respondent had defended John Kaleel in the underlying
litigation. Rodney Nardi and Hollywood at the El Rey were the adverse
litigation parties represented by Bradley Brook, Esq.After the
inconsistent and unjust decision before the trial court (see
Interrogatories) John Kaleel convinced the Bankruptcy Trustee and his
counsel that Rodney Nardi and Hollywood at the El Rey were indebted to
the John Kaleel bankruptcy estate and that the Estate should proceed
to recover John Kaleel's fifty per cent equity interest in Hollywood
At The El Rey from his equal joint stockholder Rodney Nardi.The
Trustee and his counsel suggested and requested Respondent to
represent them, prepared the motion and Respondents supporting
declaration (Interrogatories).Nardi had filed a proof of claim against
the Estate for the very stock assets that the Estate was claiming
against Nardi.The Trustee and his counsel did not raise the issue of a
conflict. I did not see one either. Certainly, there was no "past
representation" conflict. On the other hand, I saw a "potential/actual
concurrent representation" issue involving the representation of both
the Estate and the Kaleel family. The Trustee and his counsel knew of
it and I failed to notice their non-disclosure in the declaration they
prepared/assisted me to sign and which they (not me) presented to the
court. As the interrogatories explain, I took no action beyond filing
the Kaleel family complaint in circumstances where the statute of
limitations was about to expire. This was because they did not sign
the retainer agreement containing the waiver of conflict provision.
The State Bar prove disciplinary charges by clear and convincing
evidence and " all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the
respondent." Kapelus v. State Bar (1987) 44 Cal.3d 179, 184, fn.1.
"Culpability must not be debateable."Aronin v. State Bar (1990) 52
Cal.3d 276,289. In the Kaleel bankruptcy matter I did not, and to the
best of knowledge, the Trustee and his counsel did not, perceive
Rodney Nardi and Hollywood At The El Rey to be other than in breach of
their corporate duties and the holders of assets that should belong to
the Estate. In fact, shortly after my retention in mid 1998 (and
shortly before I took little further action in the matter), the
Trustee, his counsel, Rodney Nardi, Bradley Brook, Esq., John Kaleel
and myself met to explore settlement potential. Neither Bradley Brook,
Esq. nor Rodney Nardi raised even a suggestion of any potential or
actual conflict of interest. To my knowledge, it was first raised in
the Motion For Sanctions, which I did not oppose, as explained above
and in the Interrogatories. By this time, Bradley Brook, Esq. was
moving towards his representation of scientologist Slatkin in
connection with largest "ponzi" scheme in American
history-$650,000,000.00.After my success upon similar facts in the
Church of Scientology International v. Fishman-Geertz case,
Scientology and it's lawyer-agents must keep me benched and uninvolved
in the Slatkin/Scientology fraud.

Because the duty to avoid conflicts under former rule 5-102 (B) arises
at the outset of the employment when there has been little if any
opportunity for investigation of the merits of the case, the intent of
the rule is clearly prophylactic... [t] he rule against conflicting
interests is designed not only to 'prevent the dishonest practitioner
from, but as well to preclude the honest practitioner from putting
himself in a position where he may be required to choose between
conflicting duties, or be led to an attempt to reconcile conflicting
interests, rather than to enforce the rights of the interest which he
alone should represent." Citation omitted.

Anderson v. Eaton (1930) 211 Cal.113, 116-118.

Respondent has never represented either Rodney Kaleel or
Hollywood at the El Rey.Thus, he never obtained any confidential
information from them. Matter of Klein (Review Dept. 1994) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rptr. 1. Thus there was no actual conflict and no
over-reaching. Matter of Fandey (Review Dept. 1994) 2 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rpt. 752.The potential conflict of interest issue is fairly
debatable. Matter of Sklar (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rptr. 602.

Moreover, any arguable potential conflict of interest never
materialized. After the late 1998 settlement meeting described above,
Respondent dropped out of the litigation because of the punishing
litigation avalanche that the scientology litigation juggernaut was
subjecting him to. Clearly, even if an actual conflict had developed,
the "prophylactic" purpose of Rule 3-310 (C)(2) had been achieved.
Respondent was not actually representing anyone at any such point in
time.

C. MAINTAINING AN UNJUST ACTION-COUNT TEN

See Interrogatories pages 49-51. NIC Count Ten charges that Respondent
violated Section 6068 (c) which provides that an attorney must
"counsel or maintain such actions, proceedings, or defenses only as
appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person
charged with a public offense." There are federal and state provisions
that provide the analytical starting point, F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11 and
Cal.C.C.P.Sections 128.5. In essence, Rule 11 (b) (1)-(4), requires
that pleadings: (1) are not filed for improper purposes such as to
delay, harass or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;(2) are
warranted by existing law or the non-frivolous argument for the
modification or change of existing law; and (3) either have
evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary support after
further investigation and/or discovery. Section 128.5 also sets forth
a similar state law test. Furthermore, it statutorily defines
"frivolous" to mean "(A) totally and completely without merit or (B)
for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party."
In Young v. Rosenthal (2nd. Dist. 1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 96,122, it was
held that the attorney's motion papers were known to be false at the
time of filing, were frivolus, made in bad faith, without substantial
justification and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Sanctions under C.C.P. 128.5 were therefore properly imposed. The Day
v. Rosenthal, infra, court further held that a similar test also
applied to the filing of an appeal under C.C.P ? 907.Id.100.See also:
Marriage of Flaherty (1982) 31 Cal.3d.637, 646-652; 183 Cal.Rptr. 508;
Matter of Respondent D (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rpt.
517, 523.

"An attorney has probable cause to represent a client in litigation
when, after a reasonable investigation and industrious search of legal
authority, he has an honest belief that his client's claim is tenable
in the forum in which it is to be tried. Citations omitted. The test
is twofold. The attorney must entertain a subjective belief that the
claim merits litigation and that belief must satisfy an objective
standard... It is the attorney's reasonable and honest belief that his
client has a tenable claim that is the attorney's probable cause for
representation. Citations omitted. The attorney is not an insurer too
his client's adversary that his client will win in litigation. Rather,
he has a duty 'to represent his client zealously... [seeking] any lawful
objective through legally permissible means... [and presenting] for
adjudication and lawful claim, issue or defense.' Citations omitted.
So long as the attorney does not abuse that duty by prosecuting a
claim which a reasonable lawyer would not regard as tenable or by
unreasonably neglecting to investigate the facts and law in making his
determination to proceed, his client's adversary has no right to
assert malicious prosecution against the attorney if the lawyer's
efforts prove unsuccessful."
Id.683, 684.

However, the standard should not be applied without regard to
the particular circumstances of each case. In Silver v. Shemanski, 89
C.A.2d, at 546, it was held that "[i] if the issue which the attorney
is called upon to decide is fairly debatable, then under his oath of
office, he is not only authorized but obligated to present and urge
his clients claim upon the court. And if it subsequently is determined
that the position honestly taken was erroneous he should be relieved
of responsibility." In fact, the California courts have long refused
to hold attorney's responsible for filing client's claims that have
been asserted in good faith, as under any subjective and reasonable
objective review, clearly occurred here. See generally: Goodman v.
Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.App.3d 335,334,134 Cal.Rptr.375; Weaver v.
Superior Court (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 166,182-183,156 Cal.Rptr.745;
Norton v. Hines (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 917, 921-924, 123 Cal.Rptr.237.
Moreover, "if the issue the attorney is called upon to decide is
fairly debatable, then under his oath of office, he is not only
authorized but obligated to present and urge his client's claim upon
the court." Murdock v. Gerth (1944) 65 Cal.App.2d 170,179. See also:
Kirsch v. Duryea (1978) 21 Cal.3d 303,309,146 Cal.Rptr.218. In
Sorenson v. State Bar (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1036,1042; 277 Cal.Rptr.858, it
was held that [Respondent herein] " has the burden of
'demonstrat[ing] that the [underlying] findings are not supported by
the evidence or that the [disciplinary recommendations] are erroneous
or unlawful." Citations omitted. He can do so by the preferred and
venerable case-within-a case vehicle.

As regards the consolidated Berry cases, the Tenth Count, and by
extension because of the fraudulently obtained costs and sanctions
orders, the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth causes of
actions, are based upon the August 20,1999, C.C.P ?391 ruling that the
cult retained then Chairman of the L.A. Police Commission Gerald
Chaleff, Esq., to appear and obtain from Judge Williams: ". . . not
because of what I did but the way I did it." In fact, the Berry v.
Cipriano, et al., cases survived both motions to dismiss under the
SLAPP statute, and demurrers, before the cult had the case moved to
their "friend" Judge Williams whose fianc?e worked for one of the
principal defendants, as did counsel and to be named [Civ.Code
?1714.10] defendants Moxon and Abelson. The State Bar now contends
that it may prove its allegations that the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton,
Miscavige (Moxon, Abelson and Ingram), the two Pattinson cases, and
the Jeavons case lacked any legal and factual merit because of Judge
Williams' vexatious litigant ruling, and there is no need for the
State Bar court to look behind and/or beyond Judge William's
non-appealable ruling. The State Bar similarly has contended that it's
evidential proof may merely rely upon the Rule 11,etc. sanctions order
of Judge Snyder (Pattinson) and the "SLAPP" mandatory prevailing party
costs ruling of Judge Minning (Jeavons). That is not the current state
of applicable law. That cannot be applied to the actual operative
facts, existing evidence and applicable authorities.

In essence, the State Bar is wrongfully contending herein, that it may
rely upon the doctrines and principles of Res Judicata and Collateral
Estoppel in satisfying the burden and standard of proof in connection
with Count Ten. However, it may not so rely as a matter of established
law. The same argument was expressly rejected by the California
Supreme Court in Maltaman v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 924; 239
Cal.Rptr. 687.

"The State Bar noted the civil determination that petitioner committed
fraud and undue influence in the Sprang case, but the civil verdict
and judgment have no disciplinary significance apart from the
underlying facts. While the civil findings bear a strong presumption
of validity if supported by substantial evidence, we must nonetheless
assess them independently under the more stringent standard of proof
applicable to disciplinary proceedings" Citations omitted.
Id.947.

The Supreme Court then found "that the evidence produced at
the disciplinary hearing fails to support [the State Bar's claims]
'by clear and convincing proof and to a reasonable certainty." Id.
947. The reasoning was further explained in Matter of Kittrell (Review
Dept.2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.195, 205.

"Principles of collateral estoppel may be applied to preclude an
attorney from re-litigating, in the State Bar Court, 'an issue that
was actually litigated and resolved adversely to [the attorney] in a
prior proceeding, provided (1) that the issue resulting in the civil
finding is substantially identical to the issue in the State Bar
Court, (2) that the civil finding was made under the same burden of
proof applicable to the substantially identical issue in the State Bar
Court, (3) that the [attorney] was a party to the civil proceeding,(4)
that there is a final judgment on the merits in the civil proceeding,
and (5) that no unfairness in precluding relitigation of the issue is
demonstrated by the attorney." Citations omitted."Furthermore, in
order for a civil finding to be given preclusive effect under
collateral estoppel principles, it must be necessary to the civil
judgment. (Citations omitted). 'This requirement ' prevents the
incidental or collateral determination of a non-essential issue from
precluding reconsideration of that issue in later litigation
(Citation). The requirement is 'necessary in the name of procedural
fairness, if not due process itself... "

Kittrell held that even party admissions in the underlying civil
proceedings must be independently reassessed under the clear and
convincing standard of proof. Id.206.See also: Matter of Torres
(Review Dept.2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.138, 146; Matter of Berg
(Review Dept. 1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.725, 731;Matter of Lane
(Review Dept.1994) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.735; Matter of Respondent
D (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.517, 523;Matter of
Farrell (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.490, 496.
The State Bar has contended that the Judge Williams vexatious litigant
(C.C.P.? 391)ruling of August 20,1999 is conclusive evidence that the
Berry consolidated cases were "unjust" actions. Nothing could be
further from the truth- except to a scientologist or scientology
representative. To the Church of Scientology, any action against the
scientology enterprise and its representatives is deemed to be
"criminal", unable to be understood and unjust! I am only one of a
significant number of California attorneys against whom the CCP ? 391
ruling has been obtained. To my knowledge, I am the only one who has
been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding alleging that I am
therefore guilty of filing litigation that lacks legal and factual
merit. A selective prosecution!

Furthermore, the vexatious litigant statute is misnamed. The
statute requires no showing that litigation was filed to "vex",
"annoy" or "harass" and there has been no such finding as against me.
The statute does not even require a showing that the subject
litigation lacked merit or that there was any "intent" or mens rea to
commence and maintain meritless actions. Again, there has been no such
finding against me. As applied, the statute deprives subject citizens
of basic constitutional, civil and human rights, preventing people on
the state (and by automatic inclusion federal [LR 27A]) vexatious
litigant list, from obtaining a hearing on the merits of any future
law suit without first seeking permission to file from the chief
judge, hiring one's own attorney and posting security for the other
side's legal expenses (amounting to millions of dollars in most cases
involving the Church of Scientology). The courts have held that this
is not an unconstitutional procedure because it is done on a
case-by-case basis! However, that does not cure the basic constitional
and human right deprivations that I now suffer upon the basis of the
crime and corruption of the moving Scientology parties and lawyers
fraudulently obtaining the vexatious litigant order.

The statute treats the filing and dismissal of litigation per se as a
wrong irrespective of constitutional rights and the merits of the
particular litigation. It therefore has a chilling impact contrary to
the provisions of the First Amendment. When S.B.2675 was introduced
and passed in 1990, the Judicial Council knew that its provisions were
unconstitutional (see Legislative Analysis for April 17, 1990
hearing). Since then, no California court has subjected the statute to
"strict scrutiny", or examined its constitutionality, even though the
statute deprives and restricts citizens in the exercise of their
fundamental right to petition for redress of grievances before the
courts. This basic right to petition for redress of grievances before
the courts is not only enshrined in the United States Constitution but
has its genesis in the English Magna Carta.Indeed, Wolfgram v. Wells
Fargo Bank, 53 C.A.4th 43,61 Cal.Rptr.2d.694 (3rd Dist. 1997) held
that the statute must be subjected to strict scrutiny and then failed
to do so.

Very briefly, and to touch upon only several of a multiplicity of
relevant constitutional and other legal issues, the statute creates a
sub-class of litigants and then treats the litigants in the different
classes differently. Thus, the statute not only denies Due Process but
also denies the Equal Protection of the laws. Among other things, it
can bar a meritorious case from being determined upon its merits but
permit an unmeritorious case to proceed, merely because the litigant
is rich enough to hire an attorney and/or post a bond to cover the
opposing side's legal fees and costs. Consequently, the statute is a
special law, creating special classes and imposing special penalties
upon a specific sub-group of pro se litigants despite the sanctions
and other bad faith litigation provisions that already address the
specific evil (perhaps the specific lawyer) targeted by the statute.
In addition, the statute mandates the public wearing of a permanent
scarlet letter, a badge of infamy, a stigma, forever destroying the
good name, reputation, and credibility of a particular pro se litigant
in any state or federal court without appeal or redress. In my own
particular case, that is in on top of the permanent publication of the
"highly defamatory" First Cipriano Declaration for which I initially
sought redress from the very same court which forever took my most
basic of civil rights. It also took the ability to practice my
profession, because one compromised judge, improperly refusing to
recuse himself; a judge who considered the overwhelming evidence of
criminality and fraud upon the court to be irrelevant and not worthy
of consideration. There is no right to appeal the statute's
application (even in my own egregious circumstances) and no right to
challenge the constitutionality of the statute in the state trial and
appellate courts.

As a result of the cult's vexatious litigant ruling (from a
previously, severely and publicly disciplined judge; Soliz v.
Williams), I have only a very limited, conditional, burdensome and
expensive privilege to pursue legal proceedings. Even if the finding
of purported facts [the contrived number of voluntary dismissals plus
Federal Judge Snyder's ruling] by Judge Williams (and there were none
besides what Chaleff, Moxon, Rosen, Chodos and Soter alleged) is ever
reversed on appeal, my name upon the Judicial Blacklist is permanent.
Indeed, it constitutes a criminal conviction based upon alleged civil
misconduct with no means to purge the alleged wrongdoing as in civil
contempt.

In other words, the statute violates due process by treating civil
conduct as criminal contempt solely because of a failure to prevail
or, as in my own particular case, a decision to dismiss, irrespective
of reasons or circumstances. The statute does not require a showing of
bad faith and excludes evidence that a litigant acted in either
objective and/or subjective good faith, relied upon the advice of
counsel, made an honest mistake of fact (negating any intent to vex,
annoy, or harass). In my own case, the determination was made after
denying me almost all discovery and without any reference to the
actual merits of the litigation then before Judge Williams. Judge
Williams ruled partially on the basis of the Judge Snyder Rule 11
order. The cult then had Judge Minning expressly rule on the basis of
the prior "vexatious litigant" ruling by Judge Williams and the Rule
11 order by Judge Snyder. Judge Snyder then denied Respondents Rule 60
(b) motion to vacate, quoting Judge William's Vexatious Litigant
ruling which relied, in part, upon her previous Rule 11 order.
There is massive and voluminous evidence to support Respondent's
defense that the Tenth Count cases were anything but "unjust" actions.
However, for present purposes, Respondent shall make only a summary or
skeletal showing that he reasonably formed the conclusion that the
various Count Ten actions involving the Church of Scientology and its
members were meritorious and not asserted to delay, harass or injure.

(1) BERRY V. CIPRIANO, BARTON AND MISCAVIGE

The State Bar must independently establish that the Berry v. Cipriano,
Barton and Miscavige (Moxon and Abelson) cases .As the relevant
documents that the State Bar had for review clearly and convincingly
demonstrate, the vexatious litigant ruling did not address, at all,
the pre-filing factual or legal merits and motivations in connection
with the Berry consolidated cases. It had nothing at all to do with
whether they were "unjust" actions filed in violation of Section 6068
(c). The grounds for the vexatious litigant ruling were expressed to
be the same grounds on which the Church of Scientology, and its
associates, made their motion.

The only appearance then Police Commission Chairman Gerald Chaleff,
Esq., or the large Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe law firm made in the
cases, was to file and argue the vexatious litigant motion. It falsely
argued that the Pattinson v. Miscavige federal case involved
substantially similar facts and occurrences, transactions and
occurrences as the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige
(Abelson/Moxon) case. [Interestingly, it's Notice of Related Case in
the Pattinson State Court proceeding was denied.] It also falsely
argued that there had been five different case dismissals for the
purposes Section 391 (b) (1). The underlying merits were irrelevant.
Only the fact of the five dismissals- four of which were voluntary and
without prejudice. One as part of a settlement negotiation between
Scientology (through Barbara Reeves, Esq) and Respondent. There was
never any decision upon the factual or legal merits, and motivations,
in connection with the Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige (Abelson
and Moxon) cases. They survived Demurrer, a SLAPP (C.C.P.? 425.16)
motion, attempted removal to Federal Court and resulted in nearly
$100,000.00 in settlements.

Consequently: (1) "the issue resulting in the [vexatious litigant]
civil finding is [not] substantially identical to the issue in the
State Bar Court";(2) " the civil finding was [not] made under the same
burden of proof applicable to the substantially identical issue in the
State Bar Court";(3)"There is [not] a final judgment on the merits in
the civil proceeding";(4) Respondent has thus
"demonstrated"... "unfairness in precluding litigation of the issue."
Therefore, the burden is on the State Bar to independently establish
that the Berry consolidated cases were "unjustly" filed and maintained
as analyzed above. See, Matter of Kittrell (Review Dept. 2000) 4 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rpt. 195,205.

Very briefly, the gravaman of Berry v. Cipriano, Barton, Miscavige
(Abelson, Moxon) litigation was a claim for defamation arising out of
the [continuing] publication of the First Cipriano Declaration. As
stated above, they survived Demurrer, a SLAPP (C.C.P.? 425.16) motion,
attempted removal to Federal Court and resulted in nearly $100,000.00
in settlements. For those reasons alone they are prima facie "just."
Moreover, the defamation claims not evenly fairly debatable. They were
based upon Respondent's honest belief that they were tenable in the
County of Los Angeles. Respondent conducted necessary pre-filing
factual investigation and research. Respondent had a subjective belief
that the defamation claims merited litigation. Obviously, for the
forgoing reasons, both a court and several litigants considered the
Berry consolidated case claims to have been properly filed and
maintained. They entered into expensive settlements. Indeed, Cipriano
himself confessed to the defamation (and the mountain of associated
felony crime, fraud and obstruction) and expressly opposed the
vexatious litigant motion and its filing by his former counsel Moxon
and L.A.Police Commission Chairman Chaleff in the same litigation.
Rules 3-310,5-220.Judge Williams refused to "hear" the defendant
Cipriano and considered all of the crime, fraud and the confession as
to the false and damaging First Cipriano Declaration (the gravaman of
the litigation) to be "irrelevant".

In fact, despite the Church of Scientology's seven-year campaign of
"psycho-terrorism", harassment, intimidation, abuse of process and
worldwide expensive "investigation" of Respondent, there are only
three witnesses to the outrageous pedophilia allegations of the
"highly defamatory" First Cipriano Declaration. Robert Cipriano, who
has testified that he was so intimidated by Ingram (Moxon's
self-admitted agent) that he agreed to be highly paid to give false
testimony against Respondent. Anthony Apodaca, who testified that he
too was intimidated and paid by Ingram, Moxon and Wager to give false
testimony against Respondent. And Michael Hurtado who Ingram, Wager
and Moxon also solicited and suborned to testify falsely against
Respondent and to file a perjured, malicious and abusive $8 M law suit
against Respondent which they dismissed upon the eve of the trial
court ruling that they could not assert the attorney-client privilege
among themselves - because of the crime-fraud exception (Evidence Code
?956). Accordingly, the defamation claim is clearly established. So is
the fact that the defendants and their attorney's maintained "defenses
" that were subjectively and objectively clearly not "legal" or "just"
and that therefore violated Section 6068 (c). These attorneys comprise
a small army from a number of major national law firms. Indeed, it is
amazing that L.A.County Criminal Bar Association President Donald
Wager has the chutzpah to engage in the mountain of ethical braches
and felony crime that he clearly and convincingly did in the various
Hurtado matters, and then shamelessly pressure the filing and pursuit
of the Hurtado and other proceedings herein-without the California
State Bar raising an eyebrow or question!

The reasons why Respondent was forced, by the Church of Scientology's
tax free defense litigation juggernaut, blitzreig and abuse, to
default on the alleged adequacy of some 2,000 Moxon form
interrogatories [after 12 days of Respondent's deposition], and
subsequently forced to voluntarily dismiss the Berry consolidated
cases, are detailed in Respondent's Petition For Mandate, August
20,1999 Oral argument, Opposition To Petition To Find Graham E.Berry
To Be a Vexatious Litigant and Amended Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendant Chait's Motion To Dismiss For Failure To Comply With
Discovery Order re Form Interrogatories. As stated above, Judge
William's refused to disqualify himself even though the Church of
Scientology International was the moving party on the vexatious
litigant motion, which employed his own fianc?e as well as moving
counsel Moxon & Kobrin and then L.A.Police Commission Chairman Gerald
Chaleff and his firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.In addition, Judge
Williams refused to even follow the mandatory statutory procedures
when he ruled on Respondent's and Robert Cipriano's motion that he be
disqualified because of his fianc?e's employment by the moving party.
His incredible response appeared to be that he had "been re-elected
and [was] in [his] final term. I am like a Federal Court in a State
Court." (T.102: 15-21]. Prior to finding an alleged discovery default
upon Moxon's representation, he had ruled that Defendant's had
discovery priority and that Respondent could take no discovery until
defendant's concluded his deposition which commenced in May 1998 and
was still incomplete 12 deposition days later, in February, 1999.In
addition, Respondent was precluded from making any privacy objections
and was ordered, among other things, to respond to:

Defendants took depositions of another twelve persons and had noticed
the depositions of over 30 others. They delayed the case by
unsuccessfully removing Berry v. Miscavige to Federal Court. They
persuaded Judge Williams that Respondent could not have an early and
preferential trial date by law despite the express provisions of
C.C.P.? 465.5 (c). Incredibly, Judge William's reason for rejecting
Respondent's C.C.P. ? 465.5(c) preferential trial setting request was
that the law disfavors actions for defamation!

(2) PATTINSON V. MISCAVIGE - Federal Court

The Pattinson federal case was filed on May 21,1998 and assigned to
Hon. Christina A.Snyder.The First Amended Complaint was filed on
August 18,1998.It even set forth much of legal and factual basis for
the case. The State Bar now alleges, in Count Ten, that the entire
case has been judicially determined to be "unjust". The Tenth Count
expressly includes paragraph 18: " On or about September 28,1998, the
court dismissed the Pattinson matter, but Respondent continued to file
pleadings with the court." Paragraph 19 continues, in pertinent part,
"[o] n or about April 15,1999, the court issued an order that
defendant Kendrick L.Moxon ("Moxon") was entitled to costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees because Respondent had asserted claims in bad
faith and resulted in an unnecessary duplication of proceedings."
Thus, the California State Bar alleges that on September 28,1998 Judge
Snyder dismissed the Pattinson case from her Federal Court but
permitted Respondent to continue litigating it through April 15,1999!
Although falsely alleged by Donald Wager, Esq. and Michael Gerner, Esq
(both representing the Church of Scientology), the very idea defies
even imagination.

Instead, and only in pertinent part, the true procedural
history is as follows. On September 28,1998 the court heard and denied
Moxon's Rule 11 motion. However, it directed Respondent's client to
re-plead in conformity with F.R.Civ.P.Rule 8,to ensure that the fraud
claims were pled with specificity, and to replead the R.I.C.O. claims.
Minute Order, September 28,1998. Pattinson's second Amended Complaint
was filed on October 28,1998.Subsequently, the court granted leave to
file a Third Amended Complaint which was done on February
9,1999.Moxon's New York attorney and co-counsel, Eric M.Lieberman,
Esq. then refiled the Moxon Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. ? 1927 motion. It
was served while Respondent was absent from the country at his
parent's 50th wedding anniversary celebration. An Illinois attorney
and California law clerk who was relatively unfamiliar with the
intricate facts necessarily prepared absent Respondent's opposition.
The Church of Scientology and Moxon had repeatedly argued that the
Pattinson case really belonged in State Court.Pattinson's proposed
amended complaint had dropped the contentious R.I.C.O. allegations in
an unsuccessful effort to get the case past the pleading stage and the
incessant pleading motions being filed by New York lawyers Samuel
Rosen and Eric Lieberman in association with Los Angeles lawyers
Barbara Reeves of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Kendrick
L.Moxon.The other defendants were not involved with these pleading
battles. Again, through bombastic Rosen of New York, they had [mis]
convinced Judge Snyder that they had discovery priority to the
exclusion of Pattinsin, until his deposition was concluded. Of course,
it proceeded in daily segments month after month.

In addition, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette found a way to delay
and disrupt Pattinson's lawsuit against the Church of Scientology.
Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette, on behalf of Scientologist Michel
Revelliere of the Scientology Office of Special Affairs in Copenhagen,
Denmark, filed an obviously solicited retaliatory lawsuit. Many years
ago, in Paris, France, Revelliere had loaned Pattinson approx.
$40,000.00.Pattinson had repaid some of it and had not heard from
Revelliere for over ten years. However, because of OSA's intelligence
tentacles it would have always known of Pattinson's whereabouts.
Scientology knew of Pattinson's whereabouts and social support network
.This is because Moxon & Kobrin unleashed their "chief investigator"
Ingram to conduct the usual "defamatory" and "haunting"
"investigation" pursuant to the Scientology Fair Game Policies and
Practises.Meanwhile, Moxon's action on the unpaid note (to which there
are few defenses) was filed in Orange County Superior Court, quickly
proceeded through discovery and onto summary judgment. With the
Reveillere v. Pattinson judgment in hand, Moxon proceeded to harass
Pattinson and his ability to finance and obtain money for the
litigation of Pattinson v. Miscavige. Pattinson was forced into
bankruptcy at the time he was dismissing in federal court and refiling
in State Court without the R.I.C.O. and federal civil rights claims.
Pattinson advised Respondent that he could no longer afford to
litigate, that his funding sources had been cut-off due to the Fair
Game harassment and his emotional ability to proceed destroyed by
Moxon and Rosen's deposition tactics in the Pattinson v. Miscavige
case, and Moxon's discovery conduct in the Pattinson v. Revelliere
retaliatory case. In or about August 1999 Pattinson instructed
Respondent to voluntarily dismiss the Pattinson v. Church of
Scientology state court case without prejudice.

Again, the State Bar misrepresents the material facts. N.I.C.
paragraph 58 states "Respondent filed the second Pattinson case in
state court after the Pattinson matter had been dismissed in federal
court over a year previously. Respondent knew that the federal court
had imposed sanctions upon him pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.11 (as a
frivolous complaint) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1927 (as a
vexatious proceeding)." However, the documents and information that
the State Bar had, and should have investigated, evidence as follows:

(a) The Pattinson v. Miscavige state court case was filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court on March 19,1999.The Pattinson v.
Miscavige federal case was voluntarily dismissed (without prejudice)
within the same hour. The filing and dismissal was done in the manner
to preserve the statutes of limitation. Accordingly, for this reason
alone NIC paragraph 58 seriously misrepresents the material facts.

(b) When the Pattinson v. Miscavige state court case was filed on
March 19,1999 there were no sanctions orders as falsely alleged by the
State Bar. Moxon's sanctions motion was granted on April 15,1999, one
month after the state court case was filed. The sanctions order was
the result of subsequent additional briefing and was entered on July
15,1999, four months after the Pattinson v. Miscavige case was filed
in State Court and shortly before it's voluntary dismissal (without
prejudice) after the retaliatory and solicited Reveillere P.Pattinson
lawsuit had obstructed Pattinson's ability to proceed further.

There can be no subjective or reasonable subjective belief that the
Pattinson v. Miscavige cases were properly pleaded and, if allowed to
proceed, may have resulted in successful summary adjudication of many
of the claims. The pleadings were carefully based and drafted on all
fours with the controlling California Supreme Court authority and
analysis of Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092. In
addition, they were also modeled upon Wollersheim v. Church of
Scientology (1989) 212 Cal.App. 3d 872 and the applicable factual
findings of Hon. Paul G.Breckinridge in his Memorandum of Intended
Decision, June 20,1984.Church of Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC Case
No.C 420153.See also, Church of Scientology v. Armstrong (1991) 232
Cal.App.3d 1060,283 Cal.Rptr.917.For example, the Pattinson Third
Amended Complaint filed February 9,1999 in Federal Court alleged,
among other things, causes of action for fraud, invasion of privacy,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with
business relations and negligence. For example, fraud count one
(scientifically proven claims to cure illness and disease) was also
the subject of favorable adjudication in Founding Church of Washington
v. United States (1969) 409 F.2d 1146.Fraud count four (Hubbard's
Achievements and Character) was pleaded in conformity with the factual
determination in the Memorandum of Intended Decision in Church of
Scientology v. Armstrong, Id.This provided a strong case for the
application of collateral estoppel principles. Fraud count five
(Confidentiality of Files) had also been favorably determined in a
number of previous Church cases. Similarly, Fraud count six (Fair
Game) had been favorably determined in other analogous cases. See
generally: United States v. Kattar, 840 F2d 118,125, (1st Cir.1988);
Church of Scientology v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 83 U.S. Tax
Ct.Rpt., 381, 429 - 442 (1984); Van Schaick v. Church of Scientology,
535 F.Supp.1125, 1131,n.4 (U.S.D.C. Mass. 1982); Church of Scientology
v. Wollersheim, 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620
(1996); Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal App. 4th 777, 16 Cal
Rptr 705(19___); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology, 212 Cal.App.
872, 888-891,260 Cal. Rptr 331 (1989); Allard v. Church of
Scientology, 58 Cal.App.3d 439,443n.1, 129 Cal Rptr. 797 (1976);
Christofferson v. Church of Scientology, 57 Ore.App. 203 (1983). These
are some of the reasons for Bombastic Rosen's mantra to judge after
judge that "Berry has to be stopped."

The Third Amended Pattinson federal court complaint asserted claims
against defendants Church of Scientology International, Religious
Technology Center, Church of Spiritual Technology, Building Management
Services, The Sea Organization, Captain David Miscavige and Kendrick
L.Moxon. No parties obtained orders involuntarilarily dismissing the
case for any reasons. The only party who sought and obtained the Rule
11 section 1927 order was Moxon. The two relevant related sanctions
orders are only in relation to the allegations pleaded against Moxon.
Consequently, the State Bar cannot rely upon res judicata and
collateral estoppel principles that the Pattinson federal court case
was "unjust". The case must be independently litigated herein (through
case within a case) in order to determine the "justness" of the cases
enumerated in NIC Count Ten according to the clear and convincing
standard, as explained above.

Accrdingly,the Moxon Rule 11 order is expressly limited to Moxon and
the allegations asserted against him, in essence, that contrary to the
Church's [mis] representations as to it's character and reformed
conduct, it was still engaging in criminal activity and doing so
through co-conspirator Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. Some of his judicially
recognized criminal activity is set forth above in cases such as U.S.
v. Hubbard, (1979) 474 F.Supp.64, where he was named as an unindicted
co-conspirator (also see Allard, p.12 above). It is also clear and
convincing that at the very same time as Moxon was inside the Federal
Court obtaining sanctions for an allegation that he was involved in
criminal conduct on behalf of the Church of Scientology, he was
outside the courtroom concurrently engaged in felony crime with
Abelson, Ingram and Wager. At the very same time as swearing to the
Federal Court in the Pattinson case that he was not engaged in
criminal conduct he was concurrently committing serious felony crimes
with Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado.Amazingly, neither Moxon, Wager,
Abelson nor Ingram, or any of their other henchmen in this disgusting
display of lawlessness and contempt for the legal system, have filed a
declaration or other evidence controverting, rebutting or even just
denying Respondent's evidence of the Cipriano, Apodaca and Hurtado
felony crimes involving Ingram, Moxon, Abelson, Wager and others.
Accordingly, all of Respondent's allegations of fact stand
uncontroverted by any evidence from Moxon.

Consequently, a relatively simple, basic and fundamental
jurisprudential, equitable and policy issue remains for the State Bar
Court. Should the Section 1927 and Rule 11 Sanctions orders against
Respondent be the basis for discipline when the uncontroverted
material evidence establishes that the precise criminal conduct
Respondent had alleged of Moxon inside the Courtroom, was being
brazenly perpetrated by Moxon upon Respondent outside of this Court
room, and that Respondent's representation of his clients was impaired
and adversely affected? Similarly, the uncontroverted evidence herein
establishes that the vexatious litigant order was also obtained by
Moxon's fraud upon that court and more. In essence, Moxon has
amazingly argued that it is permissible and ethical to build fraud
upon fraud, in court after court, and for so long as "the litigation
misconduct" is not " ' harmful' to the extent of 'affect[ing] the
substantial rights' of the adverse parties in that litigation."
The "Doctrine of fraud upon the court is solely concerned with the
integrity of the judicial process." Where the charges implicate
counsel they implicate the integrity of the judicial process." Kerwit
Medical Products Inc. N & H Instruments, 27 FR Serv 2d 250 (ND Tex
1978), affd 616 F2d 833 (5th Cir.), 207 USPQ 625, 29 FR Serv 2d 1190.
"Since attorneys are officers of court, their allegedly dishonest
conduct involving misrepresentation and perjury would constitute fraud
on the court." H.K.Porter Co. v Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F2d
1115 (6th Cir.Ohio 1976), 191 USPQ 481, 21 FR Serv 2d 1429. " If
attorney was implicated in fabrication of evidence by party, such
implication would constitute fraud upon the court." United States V.
International Tel. & Tel.Corp. 349 F Supp 22 (DC Conn 1972), affd
without opp 410 US 919,35 L Ed 2d 582, 93 S Ct 1363(1973)."If there
was corruption on part of officers of court, court was under duty to
take whatever action might be appropriate to sustain its integrity and
to undo any resulting harm or injustice." Chicago Title & Trust Co.
Fox Theatres Corp. 182 F Supp 18 (SD NY 1960).

Cipriano's belated but still timely decision to recant and finally
tell the truth, and to testify about Moxon's smorgasbord of corruption
and criminality directed at Berry during the pendency of this
litigation, corroborated by at least 50 exhibits (many emanating from,
or signed by, Moxon himself) clearly and convincingly evidences the
infection and contamination that attorney Moxon has wrought upon every
forum in which Moxon has appeared against Berry since the blackmailing
of Cipriano on May 4-5, 1994 .The uncontroverted testimony of
Cipriano, Apodaca and Anna Hurtado irrefutably establishes that Moxon
[Ingram,Abelson and Wager]were engaged in conduct that constitutes
witness and evidence tampering, suborning perjury, conspiracy, aiding
and abetting, use of an intermediary and obstruction of justice. The
Starr Report reached the same conclusion in connection with the
President. In his testimony to the House, Judge Starr stated: "
Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes". (page 59).
"Moreover, the Constitution lists bribery as a high crime or
misdemeanor". Page 60. Judge Starr's prepared remarks made clear that
he had not been concerned with the alleged relationship underlying his
investigation (or, as here, the underlying case). "The referral is
instead about obstruction of justice, lying under oath, tampering with
witnesses, and misuse of power" [here, by an officer of the court].
The referral cannot be understood without appreciating this vital
distinction." Page 90. "Given the serious nature of perjury and
obstruction of justice, regardless of its setting, it is obvious that
the actions of [Moxon, Ingram, Cipriano, Apodaca, Hurtado and others]
to conceal the truth warranted criminal investigation." Page 109.
"Perjury is extraordinarily serious business. It is insidious. The
courthouse cannot operate if perjury is allowed to be either excused
or minimized." Page 175. It is immaterial that the case during which
it is perpetrated is either settled or dismissed. Page 188. "The
offense is the despoiling and the attack on the integrity of the
judicial system." Page 242.Professor Hogue's rebuttal of the
President's disbarment defense continued by citing from Judge Wright's
findings in Jones v. Clinton, 36 F.Supp.2d 1118 (E.D.Ark.1999):
It is simply not acceptable for anyone, but especially an attorney, to
employ deceptions and falsehoods in an attempt to obstruct the
judicial process. [Moxon's] conduct coming as it did from a member of
the bar... was without justification and undermined the integrity of the
judicial system... Our adversary system depends on a most jealous
safeguarding of truth and candor, and the system can provide no harbor
for clever devices to divert the search, mislead opposing counsel or
the court, or cover up that which is necessary for justice in the end.

During the pendency of this lawsuit alone, Moxon's corroborated
criminal conduct, directed at Berry, included violations of 18 U.S.C.
?? 1621, 1603, 1503, 1512, 371 2(a), 2(b) (perjury, obstruction of
justice, witness and evidence tampering, conspiracy, aiding and
abetting and the use of an intermediary). Specifically, Moxon's
fraudulent acts included: (1) The May 5th, 1994 presentation of the
first Cipriano Declaration with numerous fabrications and exaggerated
statements regarding Graham Berry's sexual history to Robert Cipriano,
which Cipriano was forced to sign under duress and the coercive
threats of attorney Moxon's agent Ingram; (2) The use of less than
candid investigators to obtain information and the subsequent use of
that information obtained through the practice of intimidation and
coercion ;(3) The deposition preparation of Cipriano by Moxon on June
29th, 1998 during which Moxon (later Samuel D. Rosen, Esq.) instructed
Cipriano to lie about the ages of Berry's sexual relationships,
violated of Rule 3-210 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P.
?1209(8) [18 U.S.C. ??371, 1512, 2(B), 1503, 1621 and 1623
(conspiracy, obstruction of justice, witness and evidence tampering,
perjury]; (4) The further testimonial preparation of Cipriano by Moxon
comprised of instructions to lie on June 30th, 1998, also in violation
of Rule 3-210 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P. ?1209(8)
;(5) Violating the oath taken by all attorneys at law under Business
and Professions Code ?6067, in which attorneys promise "... faithfully
to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his
knowledge and ability," violating C.C.P. ?1209(3); (6) The unlawful
business dealings between attorney and client prohibited by Rule 5-200
of the Rules of Professional Conduct and C.C.P. ?1209(8), undertaken
in order to maintain Cipriano's livelihood in exchange for perjurious
testimony against Berry; (7) the promise of up to three quarters of a
million dollar ($750,000) donation to the Moxon/ Scientology-founded
charity, Day of the Child ; (8) The provision of a $2,500 loan to
Cipriano (9) The provision for Cipriano's room and board at Joanne
Wheaton's Franklin House; (10) The rental of a Palm Springs
condominium, a five bedroom Palm Springs home complete with swimming
pool and monthly provisions for Cipriano's board and living expenses
by the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin; (11) The provision by Moxon, at no
cost to Cipriano, of a $20,000 lawyer in New Jersey to clear and
expunge Cipriano's criminal record;(12) The subsequent provision of
settlement monies in the amount of $1,500 (13) Moxon's provision of
legal services to incorporate Cipriano's "Day of the Child" Charity in
Nevada; (14) Moxon's provision of a new Saturn automobile for Cipriano
on October 6, 1998 ;and Moxon's provision of a Packard-Bell computer
for Cipriano at a cost of $1,000.

Clearly, the State Bar cannot independently establish, by clear and
convincing evidence, that Respondent "unjustly" included Moxon as one
of the defendants in the Pattinson v. Miscavige federal court case.

(3) PATTINSON V. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY- State Court
See interrogatories 37- 40.Also discussion above, particularly with
reference to NIC para. 58. The State Bar alleges in NIC paragraph 57
that " Respondent sued C.S.T in the second Pattison matter even though
the client had never had any communication with anyone who worked for
CST."

In 1977 the FBI targeted the Washington, DC and Los Angeles offices of
the Church of Scientology. They seized documents confirming that the
church had, and was, engaged in the largest ever known criminal
infiltration of the United States government. Nine senior scientology
executives were convicted and jailed, including then number two church
official Mary Sue Hubbard. United States v. Hubbard, (1979) 474
F.Supp.64. Kendrick L. Moxon, Esq. [the very same one as herein] was
named as an unindicted co-conspirator for attempted obstruction of
justice in connection with his provision of fake and forged
handwriting exemplars to the investigating FBI. It was just after
these very same events that Woodland Hills attorney Sherman D. Lenske,
Esq. became personal attorney to the head of the church, L. Ron
Hubbard, and set about preparing for Hubbard's death (with several
different wills and trusts) as well as preparing for Miscavige's (the
current leader of scientology) seizure of power and takeover. Church
of Spiritual Technology v. United States, (1992) U.S.Cl.Ct. 713. In
1982, Captain David Miscavige ('DM"), now "ecclesiastical" leader of
the church, headed a group of scientologists and lawyers in a project
to ensure that law enforcement raids would never again implicate the
church in criminal conduct. This project was named Mission Corporate
Category Sort-Out ("MCCS") At the same time, Church of Scientology of
California and the Guardian's Office ("GO") was replaced by Church of
Scientology International and the Office of Special Affairs ("OSA").
In essence, the plan was to insulate the church's criminal,
harassment, intimidation and "psycho-terror" activities behind the
attorney-client privilege. OSA would hire and pay attorneys who would
hire and pay private investigators .OSA International ("OSA INT") has
its principal offices at 6331 Hollywood Boulevard, Los Angeles, in the
Hollywood Guaranty Building. It is also officed in Clearwater, FL.
Lawyers Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette, Drescher and Abelson actually work in
the offices of OSA at the Hollywood Guaranty Building However, Abelson
and Drescher also maintain mail drops, which are their designated
offices for State Bar Act (B & P Code ? 6002.1(a)(1) purposes.
The MCCS sessions between DM, Sherman D.Lenske, Esq. and other
attorneys were taped. The session tapes fell into the hands of the
I.R.S. Scientology claimed that the I.R.S. had obtained the tapes
illegally and objected to their production pursuant to the
attorney-client privilege. The I.R.S. opposed the attorney-client
privilege claim on the ground that the tapes revealed a plan to commit
a crime or fraud and therefore were subject to the crime-fraud
exception. See generally: Church of Scientology of California v.
United States (1992) 506 U.S.9; United States v. Zolin (1987 9th Cir.)
809 F.2d 1411.The result of M.C.C.S. was a complex labyrinthine of
hundreds of corporations and an octopod organization of front groups
that reach into corporations and government. For example, the new
President of O.P.E.C. (the Organization of petroleum Exporting
Countries is Dr. Rilwanu Lukman of Nigeria. Dr.Lukman is claimed to be
a scientologist who has assisted the Church of Scientology and
Kendrick Moxon Esq.'s efforts to "utterly destroy" Scientology critic
Robert Minton. Moxon is now trying to destroy the Lisa McPherson
Trust, which Minton founded in order to assist former scientologists
and to educate the public about the 'dark side' of the Church. See
generally: www.lisamcpherson.org; www.lisatrust.net; www.xenutv.com;
www.xenunet; www.lerma.net .In addition, the Internet ISP Earthlink
has had strong Church of Scientology involvement. So has All State
Insurance. Members of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises
("W.I.S.E.") include Survival Insurance and the large national company
Atkinson - Baker Court Reporters.W.I.S.E. companies are represented on
the Church of Scientology governing entity known as the Watch Dog
Committee (WDC). Approx.10% of the gross profit of a W.I.S.E.
corporation eventually ends up in the Church of Scientology
Internationals Central Reserves.W.I.S.E. corporations, such as the
Atkinson-Baker court reporting firm are subject to potential total
control (and shut down) being exercised ultimately by senior church
corporate entities Religious Technology Center ("RTC") and Church of
Spiritual Technology ("CST"). This organizational hierarchy is
examined in detail in Church of Spiritual Technology v. United States
(1992) 26 Cl.Ct 713,730-732, and the various Church of Scientology
cases cited therein.

In fact, with the grant of tax status in 1993, "CST is ... at
the apex of a pyramid of both ecclesiastical authority and financial
control over Scientology." Id.732.

The court explained that CST would be collecting the balance of all
the income producing property and was the ultimate owner of the
trademarks, copyrights and other items of international property that
comprises the Church's trade secrets and ability to eliminate unpaid
access to Hubbard's scriptural writings. Sherman Lenske is
specifically identified as one of its founders and special directors.
In effect, Sherman Lenske, Esq. along with one scientologist and two
other non-scientology lawyers control the most senior and powerful
organization in the Scientology enterprise. It is possible that they
own the entire Church of Scientology. Former I.R.S.Assistant
Commissioner Meade Emery, Esq. is one of the other C.S.T.Special
Trustees. On the basis of Respondent's knowledge, experience,
investigation and research into Church of Scientology matters,
Respondent honestly believed C.S.T. to be a necessary and proper party
for both liability and judgment collection purposes, alter ego
purposes, and for numerous matters relevant to the two Pattinson
cases, which are the subject of Count Ten herein. C.S.T. brought a
spurious but successful C.C.P.? 425.16 'SLAPP' suit motion in the
State Court Pattinson case. The 'SLAPP' motion relied heavily and
expressly upon the vexatious litigant order of Judge Williams in the
Berry consolidated cases and Judge Snyder's ruling in the Federal
Court Pattinson case. Under C.C.P.? 425.16(c) a "prevailing party
... shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney's fees and costs."
CST had retained both expensive Washington, D.C. tax counsel to appear
with Kendrick L.Moxon, Esq. on the motion. Attorney's fees and costs
were awarded against Respondent and his client jointly in the amount
of $12,500.00.The SLAPP motion was filed by a corporation that is a
religious corporation but not a church. That has no members, several
staff and no parishioners. The corporation exists to own intellectual
property and other assets. Most scientologists are unaware it even
exists because it intentionally maintains a low profile to be free
from lawsuits such as Respondent filed. However, it successfully and
wrongly convinced the court that a lawsuit for fraud interfered with
its constitutional freedom of speech! It is extremely important to the
Church that the State Bar punishes Respondent for the analysis that
led to the naming of C.S.T. The illusion must be maintained that
C.S.T. (and it's ultimate asset control) should never be sued. What
better than a California State Bar disciplinary finding and penalty
with which to deter other counsel and litigants from naming the
ultimate entity from which a judgment might have to be collected? Such
is the deceptive purpose of the octopi of over 150 Church of
Scientology corporations.

The dilemma for counsel can be illustrated by the history of
Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California (2nd.Dist.1989) 212
Cal.App.3d 872; 260 Cal.Rptr. 331. The Pattinson complaints were, in
part, based upon the Wollersheim complaint where a $30M judgment at
trial was entered against the Church of Scientology of California.
After two appeals to the U.S.Supreme Court, the Church had the
judgment reduced to $2.5 M.The judgment has never been paid and is now
approx. $8M with post-judgment interest. The Church of Scientology has
vowed never to pay the judgment ("not one thin dime to Wollersheim").
During the original case the Church carried out it's M.C.C.S.
restructuring, stripped the assets from Church of Scientology of
California and transferred them to Church of Scientology
International. For the past approx. eight years the Church of
Scientology has fiercely resisted and repeatedly appealed all attempts
and rulings to have the original Wollersheim judgment amended to add
Church of Scientology International. That litigation itself has cost
all parties almost as much as the outstanding judgment and is on-going
at this time. Moreover, the Church's history of fiercely avoiding (and
forever appealing and re-litigating) the payment of court judgments
led Respondent to conclude, honestly, reasonably, subjectively and
objectively, that C.S.T. was a proper party for both liability and
collection purposes. The pleadings contained both alter ego and
conspiracy allegations so that it was immaterial whether Pattinson had
ever had communication with the handful of "shadowy" people comprising
C.S.T., which operates from a mail drop in Los Angeles even though it
ultimately controls and owns the entire scientology enterprise. The
SLAPP statute decision in favor of C.S.T. did not apply to any of the
other parties in the State Court Pattinson v. Scientology case. It did
not, as erroneously claimed by the State Bar, result in the dismissal
of any party or cause of action except as to C.S.T.Accordingly, the
dismissal cannot be accorded res judicata or collateral estoppel
treatment as, at to the entire case, contrary to the contentions of
the State Bar and the assertions of the Church of Scientology
representatives. C.C.P. ?425.16 motions are granted daily along with
the automatic cost-shifting provision. Moreover , the organized Bar
will likely be shocked that the State Bar now deems that such cost
shifting orders are proof of a Section 6068 (c) violation.

(4) JEAVONS V. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

The Jeavons v. Church of Scientology International case arose out of
the German A.R.D.Television documentary on "the Dark Side of
Scientology." Respondent's legal work was featured in the documentary
film. The Church was very disturbed by a helicopter flight over part
of Scientology's heavily armed and dangerous Hemet, California "Gold"
desert base. In essence, Scientology quickly tracked the helicopter
pilot, Robert Jeavons. It filed a F.A.A. complaint seeking suspension
of the pilot's license for allegedly flying too low. Jeavons believed
that Scientology was misrepresenting and falsely portraying the
photographic evidence. Furthermore, that the ground facilities were
not a "scientology school" but part of Scientology's prison or
concentration camp system: " the Rehabilitation Project Force" or
RPF." Jeavons consulted with me. Respondent also formed the honest
belief that Scientology was misusing the F.A.A. complaint process with
false evidence to use Jeavons as an example to other pilots not to fly
over or near their high security desert base(s). However, he was too
busy to assist him because of the Berry and Pattinson cases.
Respondent did agree, in order to preserve the expiring statute of
limitations, to draft a pro per complaint that he would walk through
the filing process for Jeavons. Moxon immediately appeared and filed a
SLAPP motion (C.C.P.?425.16). Moxon sought sanctions from Respondent
for representing Jeavons and filing the complaint, albeit in pro per.
He argued, in effect, that the litigation privilege (Civ.Code ? 47(b))
insulated the FAA complaint from civil liability irrespective of
however bad, abusive and improper the Church's motives and purpose in
filing the F.A.A.complaint was. The trial judge commented that it was
a tough decision but on balance he had too go with the broad "petition
activity" privilege set forth in Civil Code Section 47(b). Sanctions
of $3,023.00 in sanctions were awarded to the Church. Again,C.C.P.
?425.16 motions are granted daily along with the automatic
cost-shifting provision.Consequently, the organized Bar will likely be
shocked that the State Bar now deems that such cost shifting orders
are proof of a Section 6068 (c) violation.

The Jeavons sanctions decision genuinely surprised
Respondent. Only twelve months earlier, in Berry v. Cipriano, L.A.S.C.
superior Court Judge Hiroshige had denied demurrers and Moxon's motion
to dismiss the Berry v. Cipriano, et al. cases under C.C.P.?425.16.On
that occasion, Moxon unsuccessfully argued that the procurement and
[still continuing] publication of the First Cipriano declaration was
immunized under C.C.P.? 425.16 by all of the [false] criminal and
state bar complaints they had filed as a result and the press
conference they had called to unsuccessfully pressure an L.A.P.D.
prosecution of Respondent on the basis of the false First Cipriano
Declaration. In addition, Respondent was very familiar with Moxon's
further unsuccessful use of C.C.P.? 425.16 in Church of Scientology v.
Wollersheim, (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th. 628, 648-649, 49 Cal.Rptr. 2d 620.

D. FAILURE TO DEPOSIT CLIENT TRUST FUNDS IN TRUST ACCOUNT COUNT
ONE
See Interrogatories pages 2 to 10. The Interrogatory
Responses, along with the Claim of Exemption itself, clearly and
convincingly rebuts the allegations of the Church of Scientology
(parroted herein by the California State Bar) that Respondent falsely
sated that "his business account was a client trust account." Nowhere
is any misappropriation alleged or existing. Nowhere is there any
credible evidence or allegation that Respondent used a Trust account
for personal purposes. Matter of Heiser (Review Dept.1990) 1 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rptr. 47 [5]. At most there is a minor ($853.00), brief
and accidental co-mingling in Respondent's business account under
extreme mitigating circumstances and despicable intentional harassment
and worse by the Real Parties in Interest herein. See generally,
Matter of Boyne (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.335 [7].
Moreover, the State Bar ignores the relevant law as set forth on
below: Matter of Respondent H; Baranowski; The Rutter Group,
Professional Responsibility. In a sentence, expenses and costs go into
the Trust Account and Advance Fees can go into the Business account.
Of the $5,853.00 in issue, only $ 853.00 was for expenses and costs.
$5,000.00 was advance fees. Those advance retainer fees and costs were
returned to the client after release from levy, because Respondent
subsequently agreed with the State Bar that he would dissolve his
practice and transfer to voluntary inactive status pending his
recovery from partially and temporarily disabling "severe depression."
Matter of Lais (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr.179.

Accordingly, the aggregate amount mistakenly paid into the
wrong account was $853.00, which was nevertheless applied to the
proper purpose-costs and expenses. Despite this fact, Respondent
recognizes that the "... trust account rules are designed to safeguard
client funds from the serious risk of loss or misappropiation, whether
through carelessness or design," and that there is "no de minimis
exception". Matter of Jones (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.
Rptr. 411 [6], Matter of Respondent K (Review Dept. 1993) 2 Cal. State
Bar Ct.Rpt. 389 [13]. However, the Court in Matter of Respondent K,
Id., also held that "the amount of client trust funds that that an
attorney mishandles goes to the issue of discipline." Id.335 [7]. See
also: Matter of Respondent F (Review Dept.1992) 2 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rptr.17 [8]; Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State
Bar Ct.Rptr. 732 [6].

This case is more analogous to Matter of Respondent E (Review
Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 716.This case involved an
attorney of similar experience and track record to Respondent herein
.The attorney was a litigator and had "never had any claim for any
financial impropriety other than the instant case... No other clients
were adversely affected. The hearing judge concluded that the instant
problem was aberrational." Citations omitted. Id.721.
"This case involves aberrational negligence in handling one client
check intended for reimbursement of an expert witness fee that had not
in fact been paid by respondent... [he left] the disputed sum of
$1,754.00 in his general account when it should have been placed in
his trust account or returned to the client. For that reason
discipline is appropriate and, in light of the very strong mitigation,
we impose a private reproval."
Id.716.

E. MORAL TURPITUDE-FILING FALSE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION
COUNT TWO

See Interrogatories pages 2 to10, 10 to12, 12 to17. The State
Bar continues to parrot the Church of Scientology and misrepresent
that Respondent "falsely stated under penalty of perjury that his
business account was a client trust account." This is absolutely
incorrect as demonstrated in the Interrogatories (Response No.2,
p.5: 14-8:11.) More-over, neither Scientology nor the State Bar have
proffered any evidence that despite the fact that the documents do not
state what they allege, Respondent intentionally committed any
misconduct. Indeed, Respondent has sworn to the contrary.

In any event, Counts Two and Three charge that Respondent has
engaged in "moral turpitude". The Church of Scientology desperately
seeks such a finding with which to further blacken Respondents name.
Indeed, already they misrepresent the nature of these proceedings on
the Internet. However, the State Bar and the Church of Scientology
offer no evidence to support such a finding. Only allegations,
misrepresentations, and conjecture. Moreover, "disbelief of a
Respondent's testimony does not create evidence to the contrary."
Matter of Johnson (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 233
[2]. In Johnson it was alleged that an attorney had misrepresented
that his business account was a client trust account. The only
evidence was an insurance companies notation on a document. That
notation was held insufficient to establish the alleged
misrepresentation even where the trial judge did not believe the
respondent attorney. Here, the evidence is either irrefutably in
Respondents favor .At best, for Scientology-State Bar, it is equivocal
or ambiguous. Interrogatories, No.2, pp.6: 9-7:7.
" Reasonable doubts in proving a charge of professional misconduct
must be resolved in the accused's attorney's favor". Matter of Heifer,
Id.55 (citing Pollard v. State Bar (1983) 35 Cal.3d 274, 291.Also see
Matter of Respondent E (Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rptr.716, 725. Accordingly, this charge should be immediately
dismissed as well.

Ultimately, moral turpitude is a matter of law to be
determined by the Supreme Court. Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.
3d 103,109, In re Struck (1983) 34 Cal. 3d 891,901. "Moral Turpitude
has been defined as 'an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the
private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowman, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and man. (Citation).'(In re Higbie (1972) 6
Cal.3d 562,569)." Matter of Priamos (Review Dept. 1998) 3 Cal. State
Bar Rptr. 824,830.See also: Matter of Rech (Review Dept. 1995) 3 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rptr. 310,315;Matter of Nelson (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal.
State Bar Ct.Rpt. 178,187. In Calando v. Sinclair (1970 2nd Dis) 6
Cal.App.3d 903,915, 86 Cal.Rprt.387, the court held that "moral
turpitude, broadly defined, is conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
and good morals." However, "moral conduct cannot be predicated upon
errors of judgment as to the law... " In re Kling (1919) 44 Cal.App.267,
186 P.152.In addition, a violation of a standard of professional
conduct not yet clarified by case law is less reprehensible than
violations of more clear-cut and well-established rules. Matter of
Hagen (Review Dept.1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 153 [5].
This is a unique and novel case. Respondent is not aware of any
authority regarding the discipline of an attorney on the complaint of
opposing counsel and parties in litigation where the parties and
counsel have demonstrably and intentionally engaged in a pattern of
felonies and other wrongful conduct intended to destroy the respondent
attorney and permanently remove him from being able to litigate
against them. Moreover, the State Bar has no evidence to support most
of its allegations. " Since Respondent's testimony is plausible and
uncontradicted, it 'should be regarded as proof of the fact testified
to, especially where contrary evidence, if it existed, would be
readily available but was not offered." Citations omitted. Edmondson
v. State Bar (1983) 29 Cal.3d 339,343. The degree of punishment for
acts of moral turpitude depends "upon the harm to which the victim of
the misconduct is harmed or misled and depending on the magnitude of
the misconduct and the degree to which it relates to the members
practice of law... . Although not argued by respondent, we note that
proof of 'harm to the victim '(standard 2.3) was minimal. In fact, it
does not appear that [victims] suffered any harm." Matter of Mitchell
(Review Dept.1991) 1 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 332,339. Indeed, as
explained above, the true facts, uncontroverted testimony and evidence
is that Respondent is the victim of the complainants. See Chronology,
Interrogatories and Privilege motion. There is absolutely no clear and
convincing evidence that Respondent (as opposed to complainants)
engaged in acts of "moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption."
Section 6106. At most, Respondent made errors of judgment during
unique, besieging and over-whelming intentional and wrongful attacks
by the Church of Scientology and it's agents including the Real
Parties In Interest herein (Abelson, Wager, Moxon, Kobrin, Paquette,
Rosen, etc.) See Matter of Mitchell, Id.339, citing Matter of Lavery
(1978) 90 Wn. 2d 463,587 P.2d 157 ("Lavery's actions were not corrupt
but only ' seriously misguided judgment.") In Matter of Klien (Review
Dept. 1994) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr, 1 it was held that the
respondent did not commit acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty
or corruption where respondent did not intend to deliberately defy a
court order and did not have any dishonest or wrongful intent, and
where respondent's improper conduct was based on beliefs and
understandings which, although not only mistaken but also objectively
held, were honestly held.

G. MORAL TURPITUDE-PREFERING OTHER CREDITORS TO BARTON

See Interrogatories pages 2-10,10-12,12-17.See also the argument and
analysis in Counts One and Two above. Contrary to Scientology's and
the State Bar's allegations, the uncontroverted testimony is that Jane
Scott and not Respondent urged the opening of the Jane Scott account,
so that she could better handle his current trade creditor payments
from San Francisco.

The crux of Church of Scientology/Barton's complaint in the pending
Barton v. Berry case, and in the State Bars' complaint herein, is that
Respondent has committed fraud upon his creditors and the Bankruptcy
Court. Barton Adversary Complaint paras. 22- 49.State Bar Complaint,
Counts One to Three. The burden of proof is upon Scientology/Barton
there, and the State Bar here, is to prove (by clear and convincing
evidence) that Respondent "knowingly" and "purposefully" engaged in
the alleged conduct for the purpose of avoiding payments to his valid
creditors." Respondent denies any fraudulent or willful intent in
connection with any of Barton's and the State Bar's allegations.
Indeed, the first time that the cult filed Barton v. Berry in
bankruptcy court it was dismissed, without prejudice, upon my motion.
Approx. one year later Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette filed Barton v.
Berry again. It was filed within a short time of the ENEC before Judge
Marcus in early April, 2001.As explained in connection with Section A
above, the Judge had suggested I move to vacate the underlying orders.
The Bankruptcy Court accepted my following argument in opposition to
the Barton motion for summary judgment, at it had done in connection
with a Moxon v. Berry motion for summary judgment in December 1998.

As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in re
Adobe, "transferred" as used in Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(2)(A)
should be read to mean transferred and remained transferred. Section
727(a)(2)(A) was intended to deny the discharge to debtors who take
actions designed to keep their assets from their creditors either by
hiding the assets until after they obtain their discharge in
bankruptcy or by destroying them. As the court noted, it is not
uncommon for an uncounseled or poorly counseled debtor faced with the
mounting debts and pressure from creditors by transferring it to
others."

Section 727(a)(2) further provides that the act complained of
must be done with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an
officer of the estate. Absent a specific intent to defraud creditors,
a discharge should not be denied. In the case at bar, the applicable
facts are on all fours with Commerce Bank. Commerce Bank found that
there was no intent to defraud regarding transfers of company account
receivables proceeds to the debtor's personal bank account because the
debtors were trying to save the business by using the money to meet
payroll obligations. Commerce Bank, Id. Accordingly, a transfer in
good faith is not made with actual intent to defraud, and constructive
intent is not sufficient to bar a discharge. In the Matter of Simon,
197 F.Supp.301 (D.C.N.Y. 1961) aff'd sub nom, Simon v. Agar, 299 F.2d
853 (2d Cir 1962). As to both Barton's and the State Bar's allegations
of misconduct by Respondent, even if proven (and they are denied),
Commerce Bank is on all fours in favor of Defendant/Debtor.
Indeed, and consistent with the above holding in Commerce Bank, the
testimony herein evidences that Respondent's specific intention in
connection with "the Jane Scott pass through account" was to
facilitate the cashing of a settlement check in connection with the
underlying litigation and payment of Debtor's creditor's while he was
abroad at his parent's golden wedding anniversary celebration, and by
Jane Scott who then lived 400 miles from Debtor, and later, to keep
his then business going by being able to continue to pay his staff and
current creditors.

In that regard, the intent to prefer creditors is not equivalent to
the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. In re Miller, 39
F.2d 301, 32 C.B. 2d 854 (11th Cir.1994); Matter of Richter, 57 F.2d
159 (2d Cir.1932); Matter of Gould, 31 F.Supp.793 (D.C.Conn. 1929); In
re Parnell Lumber Co., 107 F.Supp. 793 (D.C.Ohio 1951). Indeed, to
justify the refusal of discharge, there must have been more than a
preferential payment or preferential transfer. Hultman v. Lewis, 82
F.2d.940 (9th Cir.1936). At most, that is all that Barton and the
State Bar can argue here. See generally, In re Magallanes, 96 B.R.
253, 255-256 (BAP 9th Cir.1988).

The gravaman of Scientology/Barton's and the State Bar's complaints
(NIC) is that Respondent has committed fraud upon his creditors and
the Bankruptcy Court. Barton Adversary Complaint paras. 22-49,NIC
Count Three. The burden of proof is upon the State Bar and Scientology
to prove that Respondent "willfully"," knowingly" and "purposefully"
engaged in the alleged conduct for the purpose of avoiding payments to
his valid creditors." Bankruptcy Service Ed ? 57:639.See generally: In
re Varrasso, 37 F.3d 760 (1st.Cir.1994); In re Quinones Rivera, 184
B.R. 178 (D.P.R.1995); Matter of Earhart, 68 B.R.14 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa
1986).

Respondent denies any fraudulent intent in connection with any of the
Scientology and State Bar's allegations. As the Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit held in re Adobe, "transferred" as used in
Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(2)(A) should be read to mean
transferred and remained transferred. Section 727(a)(2)(A) was
intended to deny the discharge to debtors who take actions designed to
keep their assets from their creditors either by hiding the assets
until after they obtain their discharge in bankruptcy or by destroying
them. As the court noted, it is not uncommon for an uncounseled or
poorly counseled debtor faced with the mounting debts and pressure
from creditors by transferring it to others."

Section 727(a)(2) further provides that the act complained of
must be done with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an
officer of the estate. Absent a specific intent to defraud creditors,
a discharge should not be denied. In the case at bar, the applicable
facts are on all fours with Commerce Bank. Id. Commerce Bank found
that there was no intent to defraud regarding transfers of company
account receivables proceeds to the debtor's personal bank account
because the debtors were trying to save the business by using the
money to meet payroll obligations. Commerce Bank, Id. Accordingly, a
transfer in good faith is not made with actual intent to defraud, and
constructive intent is not sufficient to bar a discharge. In the
Matter of Simon, 197 F.Supp.301 (D.C.N.Y. 1961) aff'd sub nom, Simon
v. Agar, 299 F.2d 853 (2d Cir 1962). As to Plaintiff's allegations of
misconduct by Defendant, even if proven (and they are denied),
Commerce Bank is on all fours in favor of Defendant/Debtor.
Indeed, and consistent with the above holding in Commerce Bank, the
testimony herein evidences that Respondent/Debtor's specific intention
in connection with "the Jane Scott pass through account" was to
facilitate the cashing of a settlement check in connection with the
underlying litigation and payment of Debtor's creditor's while he was
abroad at his parent's golden wedding anniversary celebration, and by
Jane Scott who then lived 400 miles from Debtor, and later, to keep
his then business going by being able to continue to pay his staff and
current creditors.

In that regard, the intent to prefer creditors is not equivalent to
the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors. In re Miller, 39
F.2d 301, 32 C.B. 2d 854 (11th Cir.1994); Matter of Richter, 57 F.2d
159 (2d Cir.1932); Matter of Gould, 31 F.Supp.793 (D.C.Conn. 1929); In
re Parnell Lumber Co., 107 F. Supp. 793 (D.C.Ohio 1951). Indeed, to
justify the refusal of discharge, there must have been more than a
preferential payment or preferential transfer. Hultman v. Lewis, 82
F.2d.940 (9th Cir.1936). At most, that is all that Plaintiff and the
State Bar can argue here. The Bankruptcy Court did not accept the
summary judgment allegations of the Church of Scientology [and the
California State Bar] that the Scott account was to "thwart the levies
of valid creditors." Barton v. Berry, Memorandum of Decision, August
14,2001, p.4: 3-6.

One reason was the numerous and blatant representations of fact by
Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette. " Based on the foregoing, the Court shall
deny the Motion... and there are inaccuracies in the allegations and
genuine issues of material fact... " Memorandum of Decision, August
14,2001, p.9: 12-14.Emphasis added.
As stated just above, "the intent to prefer creditors is not
equivalent to the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors."
Citations omitted. The judicially accepted evidence herein is that
there was nothing improper about the use of the Jane Scott account "to
keep his then business going by being able to continue to pay his
staff and current creditors." Respondent was acting in self-defense
and with justification. Respondent is provided with German Secret
Service protection when the German government seeks his knowledge
about scientology terrorism, fraud and crime. Senior L.A.Sherriff's
Officers have cautioned him as to his physical security and safety in
connection with the Church of Scientology and it's representatives.
There have been concerns for Respondents physical security and life
posted to the Internet.

The Scientology Fair Game documents evidence what the Churchs lawyers
were to, and did do, to try and obstruct Respondents ability to
practice law and represent clients, irrespective of his obligations to
any other clients. Subsequent testimony confirms that Moxon, Kobrin
and Paquette were doing just that. Indeed, the constant mantra of
Samuel D.Rosen, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq. (from another New York law
firm), Barbara Reeves, Esq and Moxon/Kobrin/Paquette before Judges
Snyder, Williams and Minning was that "Berry has to be stopped." [from
getting the truth and evidence out]. The Barton judgment was obtained
by fraud [through Cipriano, Hurtado, Apodaca, Rosen, Moxon, Abelson,
Wager, Ingram, etc.). It was being used to try and obstruct
Respondent's representation of any on-going client ["he is to be
utterly destroyed by any means possible"]. Respondent had a fiduciary
duty to his then clients, faced with an unlawfully motivated attack to
indirectly and immediately prejudice [and destroy] their
representation and legal matters. Respondent had to act to try and
preserve at least some ability to protect the interests of his then
clients. In his view, his fiduciary duties required nothing less. In
essence, this is the lesser of two evils defense. It is the defense of
justification and self defense.

The defense of self-defense and justification in legal matters
involving the Church of Scientology has been expressly accepted in
this State. Church of Scientology of California v. Armstrong (1991
2nd.Dist.Div.3) 232 Cal.App. 3d 1060,283 Cal.Rptr. 917.
Following this decision, the Church of Scientology has retaliated with
over six separate lawsuits against Armstrong and has driven him out of
America, as they also did with Werner Erhard (founder of 'Est') and
Keith Henson. Kendrick Moxon, Esq., Eric Lieberman, Esq and Timothy
Bowles, Esq. were also counsel in the CSC v. Armstrong case
("Armstrong One").

Armstrong was a former church member. He was close to L.Ron
Hubbard who even hosted Armstrong's wedding. Armstrong witnessed a
massive shredding of documents by the church-to avoid them being
seized or produced in discovery.Id.1065-1066.Armstrong became
concerned that the Church was fraudulently portraying the truth about
L.Ron Hubbard and the Scientology.Id.1066.Later, Armstrong and his
wife scrumptiously left the cult. Id.1066.Armstrong was in fear of his
life and expensive church retaliatory litigation. "For these reasons,
Armstrong took a number of [Hubbard archival documents] ... and sent
them to his attorney". Id.1067. "He believed his physical and mental
well-being as well as that of his wife, were being threatened because
the [scientology] organization was aware of what he knew... " Id.1073. "
Armstrong's defense was predicated on his claim that he reasonably
believed the Church intended to cause him harm, and that he could
prevent the apprehended harm only by taking the documents, even though
the taking resulted in harm to the Church."Id.1073. The Court of
Appeals held, among other things, as follows:

" [Scientology] complain[s] that certain testimony of defense
witnesses was irrelevant, as there was no showing that Armstrong was
aware of the facts to which each of the witnesses testified. The
testimony in question was largely corroborative of Armstrong's
testimony wit respect to Church practices affecting his state of mind,
and was relevant to the issue of the reasonableness of his belief that
the Church intended to cause him harm."
Id.1074.

The Court of Appeals upheld Armstrong's defense of justification and
self defense. Id.1074. In doing so they cited the following with
approval:

" one is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise be a
trespass or conversion of a chattel in the possession of another, for
the purpose of defending himself or a third person against the other,
under the same conditions which would afford a privilege to inflict a
harmful or offensive contact upon the other for the same
purpose."(Rest.2d Torts, ? 261.) " For the purpose of defending his
own person, an actor is privileged to make intentional invasions of
another's interests or personality when the actor reasonably believes
that such other person intends to cause a confinement or harmful
contact to the actor, of that such invasion of his interests is
reasonably probable, and the actor reasonably believes that the
intended harm can safely be prevented only by the infliction of such
harm upon the other. (See ? 63.) A similar privilege is afforded an
actor for the protection of certain third persons. (See ? 76.)" (Rest.
2d Torts, ? 261,com.b.)"Emphasis added.
Id.1072.

The situation facing Respondent and his clients was the same
as the Court of Appeals was considering. And the Court was doing so
with regard to the same Scientology enterprise acting through the very
same attorneys, Moxon and Leiberman. Moreover, this is not the type of
situation that has been addressed in previous concealment cases before
the State Bar. There was no attempt to conceal monies for private
purposes unrelated to Respondent's then besieged law practise. See
generally: Matter of Bleeker (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar
Ct.Rpt. 113; Matter of Heiser (Review Dept. 1990) 1 Cal. State Bar 47;
Crane v. State Bar (1981) 30 Cal.3d 117,124.

The State Bar also asserts that " [o] n June 4,1999,a check in
the amount of $6,400.00 was deposited into the Jane Scott account.
Respondent was to keep the money as earned fees." State Bar letter to
Hon. Robert Talcott, September 27,2001." The client has stated these
were earned fees. The State Bars allegation is that these earned fess
had to be first paid into a trust account irrespective of client
authority. However, such is not the settled law in the State of
California. All monies received from a client need not go into the
trust account Although Respondent's experience and research herein
persuades him that should be the preferred and prudent practice, it is
not the law in the State of California. It is the "character and
nature of the funds... which must ultimately determine their status."
Matter of Respondent H (Review Dept. 1992) 2 State Bar Ct.Rptr.234.
The law in the Sate of California, contrary to ABA Model Rule DR-102A,
is that advance payments for client costs and expenses must be
deposited in the client trust account. Rule 4-100A.See: Aronin v.
State Bar (1990) 52 Cal. 3d. 276,280,283-284, 276 Cal. Rptr.
160,161,163; Stevens v. State Bar (1990) 51 Cal. 3d.283-287, 272 Cal.
Rptr. 167,169.

The law regarding the deposit of fees is much less clear and
has been expressly left open by the California Supreme Court in
Baranowski v. State Bar (1979) 24 Cal.3d 153, 154 Cal.Rptr. 752. It
held that there was no dispute that an advanced fee payment of
$5,000.00 had been received by the attorney.Id.163.

"Rule 8-101 (the old rule) expressly requires that sums advanced to
pay costs or expenses be placed in a separate trust account; it does
not expressly deal with advance legal fees. Thus the present case
poses two issues: Whether any portion of the monies advanced by [the
clients] were for costs or expenses, and, if not, whether rule 8-101
nevertheless requires that unearned fees be placed in a separate trust
account. ... Thus, if the invocation of rule 8-101 depends on the
distinction between money for costs and money for fees, it is
reasonable to conclude that the State Bar has failed to sustain its
burden of proof in the matter... The novel aspect of the issue is the
seemingly implicit contention of the respondent State Bar that the
issue of costs and fess is irrelevant. Its argument would appear to be
that any advance fee payment must be deposited in an identifiable
trust account until such time as it is earned. We do not, however,
resolve the issue of whether or not an advance fee payment is
correctly characterized as money 'received or held for the benefit of
clients... " Id.163, 164.

Moreover, and contrary to the State Bar's position herein, the
law has not changed.

Subsequently, " the California Supreme Court did approve current CRPC
4-100 as proposed by the State Bar. In recommending the current Rule,
the State Bar specifically noted that it did not intend the Rule to
require advance fees to be deposited in a client's trust account: 'The
concept of including in paragraph (4-100)(A) a requirement that
'advances for fees' be placed in the client trust account was
considered but rejected because it is believed that such provision is
unworkable in light of the realities of the practice of law.'[In the
Matter of the Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Professional
Conduct, California Supreme Court Case No. Bar Misc. 5626,at "Request
that the Supreme Court of California Approve Amendments to the Rules
of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and Memorandum
and Supporting Documents in Explanation," at Memorandum, Dec.1987,
p.42 (Emphasis added)]

Fatally, the State Bar expressly states the true fact that "Respondent
was to keep the proceeds as earned fees" and there is no evidence to
the contrary. There is no suggestion of any misappropriation in any
respect in the N.I.C. " Reasonable doubts in proving a charge of
professional misconduct must be resolved in the accused's attorney's
favor". Matter of Heiser, Id.55 (citing Pollard v. State Bar (1983) 35
Cal.3d 274, 291.Accordingly, this charge should be immediately
dismissed as well.

PREFACE TO SETTLEMENT OFFER

All of the alleged, and any admitted, misconduct occurred
after 28 years of blemish free practice and within the 1998/1999 year.
Indeed, disregarding Count Ten, it all occurred in 1999.It was the
result of a seven year campaign to harass, terrorise and destroy
Respondent in accordance with the Church of Scientology's Fair Game
Policies and Practises.Having caused Respondent to slide into 'severe
depression" through their ethical and other violations, Scientology
caused the initiation of theses proceedings-at approximately the same
time as they initiated Adversary Actions in the Bankruptcy Court.
Scientology's purposes in all of this are contrary to the statutes,
rules and authorities applied by the State Bar. More over, the
Scientology campaign against me continues.

Accordingly, it is submitted that this is a unique and novel case.
Moreover, there are strong mitigating factors in favor of Respondent.
He is currently on voluntary inactive status because of his severe
depression. He has represented to the State Bar Court that he will not
seek to reinstate 'active' status without first providing a medical
opinion confirming his recovery for the purposes and stresses of
litigation and trial practice. If he were to seek to do otherwise such
would be contempt. Consequently, there is no present risk to the
public. No clients have complained herein. No clients have lost monies
herein. Nothing has been done which has not or cannot be undone.
Indeed, Respondent's clients are supporting him and some have even
written the State Bar and the State Bar Court complaining at what the
State Bar has done to him and calling for an investigation of those
involved in the underlying events at the behest of the Church of
Scientology (see the Real Parties In Interest above). Several have
filed their own unsuccessful complaints against Moxon.

These matters are the result of complaint by notorious and infamous
litigation adversaries little different from the Mafia. Indeed, Elliot
Abelson, Esq. used to be an attorney to the mafia Gambino crime
family. For all these reasons, particularly on-going matters involving
the Real Parties In Interest, Respondent cannot stipulate to anything
that the culpable Real Parties In Interest might subsequently use to
try and cause prejudice and bias against him-as they have demonstrably
done in connection with all of the underlying matters reflected in the
NIC.

Respondent denies the propriety of Counts Two through Five, Seven,
Eight and Ten. Moreover, Counts One and Six are strongly mitigated.
Respondent dissolved his legal practice (for medical reasons at the
urging of the State Bar on December 2,1999) and took voluntary in
active status in February of this year.

Despite the strong mitigating circumstances (see Interrogatories) in
relation to Counts One and Six, Respondent recognizes that (although
under extreme and intended pressure) he nonetheless made mistakes in
connection with Counts Two and Six. He accepts that these were still
mistakes no matter how accidental and unintentional. Respondent's
self-condemnation and criticism has been far more severe than anything
a Court can ever say. He has suffered indescribably.

What the Real Parties In Interest have done to cause him to be here
before this Court (rightly or wrongly), has already irreparably
damaged and destroyed his career (through the continuing publication
of the First Cipriano Declaration), has cost him his home of many
years (and an approx. $400,000.00 in lost equity and mortgage
payments) and his car (Barton and Jeavons). He now has no-retirement
prospects and survives on food stamps and general relief - which the
Church of Scientology is already trying to disrupt and terminate
(through Paquette and the Jeavon's sanctions). Nothing can ever be
done by Real Parties In Interest to undone this intended result of
intentional misconduct by the Real Parties In Interest who, as part of
their despicable conduct, pressured the State Bar for 18 months in
order to ensure the filing of the Counts within.

At all times, Respondents actions were taken in good faith and for the
benefit of victims of scientology's litigation terrorism. Injustices
and the seeking of justice drove him. He was not motivated by personal
gain. He agreed to try and stand up against the Church of
Scientology's litigation juggernaut and blitzkriegs because he was gay
and not in a permanent relationship. It was his position that married
counsel with children could be terrorized and compromised more than he
and that therefore they had even more to lose than he.

SETTLEMENT OFFER

For the foregoing reasons, and only for settlement purposes
[without any intended admissions or inferences], Respondent will
conditionally plead to Counts One and Six.
Count One is a brief co-mingling of a relatively small amount of money
in connection with which there is no evidence of wrongful intent
regarding those monies. Count Six is an actual conflict of interest
charge where the clients failed to sign the conflicts waiver, the
motions were made by opposing counsel now employed in
scientology-related matters, and Respondent failed to oppose them .See
Interrogatories, Counts One and Six. Respondent accepts that there may
be a mandatory three-month suspension in connection with Count One.
However, "in light of the unique and novel circumstances surrounding"
Respondents alleged misconduct violation of this a private reproval
may be the appropriate level of discipline." Matter of Respondent X
(Review Dept.1997) 3 Cal. State Bar Ct.Rptr. 592.

The conditions on which Respondent is willing to so plead are
as follows:

(1) That there only be a public reproval (with or without
acceptable and reasonable conditions attached. Rule 956), or

(2) That no more than three months stayed suspension be imposed;
and
(3) That there be no period of actual suspension; and

(4) Respondent receive credit for the elapsed time since the
dissolution of his practice in December, 1999, his voluntary transfer
to inactive status in February, 2000 and the date of any settlement
herein; and

(5) There be no monetary penalties or requirements; and

(6) There be a statement referencing the unique and extenuating
circumstances and the strong mitigating factors in Respondent's favor.

(7) Any other conditions be limited to a requirement that
Respondent file a medical opinion that his health is satisfactory for
him to return to active status. Such a medical opinion to be submitted
addressed to the Chief Trial Counsel, referencing the proceedings
herein, and no less than 14 days before Respondent seeks to return to
active status (whether or not actual practice).

Respondent has read all four volumes of the State Bar Reporter, and
reads the disciplinary section of the California Bar Journal. He
submits that, in all of the circumstances herein, his Settlement Offer
is consistent with the thrust of those decisions.

CONCLUSION

In 1994 one of Respondents then partners wrote him stating that no
attorney should have to endure what Respondent was enduring at the
hands of Scientology, Ingram, Moxom, Kobrin, Drescher and Abelson.
Respondent continues to endure the malicious and vexatious attacks.
The California State Bar continues to ignore them.

However, the pattern and practice of R.I.C.O violations, malicious and
vexatious litigation abuse (even in defense) continues to be
perpetrated upon the public by many of the same attorneys named above
including: Samuel D.Rosen, Esq. and the giant Paul, Hastings, Janofsky
& Walker law firm; Gerald Chaleff, Esq. and the giant law firm of
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Gerald Feffer, Esq. and the large and
influential Washington "white collar" criminal defense law firm of
Williams & Connelly; Gary Soter,Esq. of the large Los Angeles
Wasserman,Comden & Casselman law firm (which also has strong Church of
Scientology and State Bar connections).Of course, there is the same
band of Church of Scientology in-house attorneys such as Abelson,
Drescher, Moxon, Kobrin and Paquette.It has occurred in cases filed
against citizens such as Jesse Prince (Florida),Mark Bunker
(Illinois), Keith Henson (California) and Bob Minton (Vermont and
Florida).It has been perpetrated against foreign government officials
such as Ursula Caberta of the German State of Hamburg's Scientology
investigation task force. It daily occurs in cases such as Lisa
McPherson v. Church of Scientology (Florida) and Lopez v. Church of
Scientology (California). In these pending cases, the Church of
Scientology has also "hi-jacked the legal system and flown it through
the constitution."Indeed, at times, in the Lopez case, Scientology
lawyers are filing a different motion every day! The continuing
wrongful scientology attorney conduct can be evidenced by California
attorneys Daniel Liepold, Esq and Ford Greene, Esq., and Florida
attorneys Ken Dandar, Esq.and John Merrit, Esq.

"The principal purpose of State Bar proceedings is to protect the
public, preserve confidence in the legal profession, and maintain the
highest possible standards for attorneys; not to punish the culpable
attorney." Chadwick v. State Bar (1989) 49 Cal.3d 103,111.However, as
described above, the State Bar of California is engaged in the
protection and cover-up of the felony crimes and litigation frauds of
a gang of out-law attorneys. As a direct result, a significant number
of citizens have lost faith in the integrity of the American legal and
judicial system. Some either no longer fly the Stars and Stripes or
fly it daily at half-mast - in mourning for what the Church of
Scientology has been able to perpetrate in an Orwellian and Alice in
Wonderland claim of truth and justice! See generally: Support Letters.
It is now necessary to proceed to the Federal and International levels
regarding the matters referred to herein, and that relate to the many
other victims of the Real Parties In Interest (and the California
State Bar's) clear attempts to whitewash and cover up what has been
occurring in Los Angeles County for over fifteen years. That cover-up
has so far protected other State Bar leaders at the expense of
ordinary state bar member/lawyers, their clients and the public being
terrorized by the "psycho-terror" and litigation abuse of the Church
of Scientology. Such litigation abuse, and "psycho-terror", is only
made possible by the highly paid and highly placed Church of
Scientology attorney representatives, and the judicial and law
enforcement officers that have been compromised and corrupted by the
Cult's covert operatives. See generally: The American Lawyer,
Scientology's War Against The Judges.

Incredibly, at the end of the vexatious litigant proceeding [lynching]
on August 20,1999 Hon. Alexander Williams, III stated:

"Mr. Berry, I have generally enjoyed working with you, and I mean that
sincerely. You are literate. You are at times poetic. You are capable
of great courtliness and I have enjoyed trying to provide an arena
where your passion and your concern would receive lawful hearing and
access. It is the difficult cases that make a judge a judge, and I
have tried to respond with the very best judicial fiber I can muster
to this very challenging case. I repeat what I had suggested in my
dialogue to your argument. I think the petition is more about not so
much about what you have done in seeking redress for the claims you
brought to this court than it is about how you have done it." T.73:
24-74:12.
* * * * *

Should you have any questions, or require additional comments,
documents and/or explanations, please do not hesitate to contact me as
may be appropriate.